On 09/02/2025(Tue) 20:15
Steve Litt <slitt@???> wrote:
> 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...
Sorry Steve, trying to reply to everyone manually can sometimes lead to
mistakes.
David
::
Re: [DNG] Concern about Rust adopti…
