[MoonGhost]

> Rust and x86 assembly

then

> Memory-safe language.

What's the point? Looks like today Rust is like 3D printing was. As if it makes something better. Printing was hyped and advertised by printers sellers and manufacturers. Finally they run out of money.

As for project, it's cool if compatible with old soft. Otherwise suitable mostly for education and masochism. Long way to become practical anyway even if it gets traction.

[whytevuhuni]

The idea of Rust is not that it is 100% safe, but rather that it is able to encapsulate unsafety and divide the program in two parts:

- unsafe code plus modules that support it (the "trusted base")

- all the rest

Rust's promise is that there is no way to trigger any undefined behavior from bugs happening in "all the rest" of the code. If that code makes for more than 95% of the total, then that's a huge win compared to a completely unsafe language.

Also, Rust's support for inline assembly is in my opinion better than C's, it's much easier to specify and figure out the constraints on the boundary between Rust/assembly.

[unchar1]

You can write memory safe code in any language, but having a machine i.e. the Rust compiler check it for you is less error-prone than if a human does it.

Also if you look at the repo, only 3% of the codebase is in Assembly. IMO if >95% project is in Rust, you can definitely claim it's a Rust project.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Finally, a positive comment about Rust that I can 100% agree with :)

[krustowski]

Well, the point is to experiment with Rust no_std+no_main environment while trying to educate myself on how the things work under the hood. The project itself is part "just" a rewritten system (from C to Rust), and part an enhancement of such system furthermore. It lacks the external program execution though yet.