David Niklas via Dng said on Tue, 2 Sep 2025 19:38:47 -0400

>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.

[snip more evidence]

Bruce wrote what you're replying to, I didn't. All I know is I read in
the headlines that Linus himself qualified Rust to be an acceptable
language for Linux kernel development. I have no idea how much or how
little discussion preceded or followed this decision.


SteveT

Steve Litt

http://444domains.com