Re: Another language?
When I see a quote from Google like this (from the article):
"we feel that Rust is now ready to join C as a practical language for implementing the kernel"
my thinking is something like "Are we basing this potentially dangerous exercise on what SOME people *FEEL* ???"
It makes NO sense to change the programming language of the Linux kernel. It makes a *LOT* of sense to keep it consistent throughout, in order to avoid the potential INEFFICIENCIES and/or INSTABILITIES of any necessary 'translation layers' (read: shoehorns) for calling conventions/ABIs/standards/etc. between lingos, _AND_ to make it possible for legacy code to be MAINTAINED. And WHAT is the benefit gained by doing so? The risk, in my bombastic opinion, as well as DEVELOPER TIME, *GREATLY* outweighs any possible benefit to doing this.
What is SO hard about LEARNING TO CODE 'C' PROPERLY???
(if Linus 1.0 called use of newer C compiler features "compiler masturbation", what is he REALLY thinking about THIS??? Linus 2.0 may lack the chutzpah to say what needs to be said, BEFORE something goes "boom")
Many "change for the sake of change"s have been done in the last decade or so. Australis. FLATTY user interfaces in general (apparently driven by Google). An OS that spies on you and slings ads at you, and even strongarms you to use a cloudy login. Subscription versions of desktop software.
NONE! OF! THESE! CHANGES! ARE! GOOD! THINGS!!!
And I have to wonder, HOW many of them were DRIVEN! BY! GOOGLE!??? Micros~1 may just b along for the ride on this one. or not.
AND... if you have to "gerrymander" a programming language to NOT do what it is originally designed to do (crash and burn on memory allocation failure) JUST so that you can use it in the kernel [read: "shoehorn" it in there anyway] then something is seriously wrong with he plan. Or, the lack thereof.