On 09/02/2025(Tue) 17:47
Steve Litt <slitt@???> wrote:
> 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.

Hello Steve,

If the kernel devs did indeed have this discussion, please point me to
it. I've read Phoronix for years and I've followed, on and off, LWN, but
the authors have never done more than point to the common "rust is better"
idioms.
I'm unaware of any serious discussion, via the LKML, to which I'm
subscribed, or elsewhere, regarding what programming language would be
the best fit for the Linux Kernel.
I've searched and have never found a comparison of the various programming
languages out there.
AFAIK, I'm the only person who ever created a comprehensive comparison
(sadly I never released it), of any equivalent SW for Linux.
OSS users seem to just (randomly?) pick a piece of SW or a programming
language, and stick with it.

Again, if I'm uninformed, please point me to the information.

Thanks,
David