I think if we were really going to have this argument, we'd first be
deciding if memory safety, object lifetimes, and re-entrancy were desirable
language features. IMO they are very desirable for systems programming.
Then, we'd be deciding where to get them. But the kernel developers already
considered this, and made their decision, one that we should have no
problem allowing to stand until we are ready for another kernel - which we
could do today and _will_ probably do sooner than you think.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 2:42 PM Steve Litt <slitt@???> wrote:

> Davide Biondi via Dng said on Tue, 2 Sep 2025 13:58:18 +0200
>
> >On 2025-09-01 09:05, Davide Biondi wrote:
>
> >Why has a language so young, untested, and immature been implemented in
> >a project as old, complicated, and critical as the Linux kernel itself?
>
> Interesting. Usually I'm hit with the "Appeal to Novelty" logical
> fallacy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty ). This is
> its mirror image sibling, "Appeal to Tradition"
> ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition ), again a logical
> fallacy.
>
> The age of a piece of software doesn't necessarily correlate with its
> quality. Furthermore, Rust is now 13 years old, so it's no newborn baby.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
>
> http://444domains.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> Manage your subscription:
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
> Archive: https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/list/dng.en.html
>


--
Bruce Perens K6BP