[mplemay]

This opinion is not backed by facts, any insight about linux (or even the languages in question), or even related to this post. Nevertheless, I wonder if it was a good idea to allow rust contributions to the linux project. From all of the bits and pieces I read about zig (including this project), I feel like it would have been better aligned (than rust) to pick up where the mainly C codebase left off.

[renox]

Zig isn't 1.0 so..

[whytevuhuni]

Not really. Zig's answer to safety is mostly based on runtime panics, and the kernel really, really hates panics.

As such, the only thing left is better ergonomics, and that's not really worth the effort to switch.

Rust isn't being adopted because it's an easier language to code in, and in fact it's being adopted in spite of the fact that it's harder to code in. And that's because to some kernel devs, the promise of better security and fewer vulnerabilities is worth that much.

On the other hand, Zig is great for user-space applications. The stuff to replace GNU's coreutils with.

[AndyKelley]

> Zig's answer to safety is mostly based on runtime panics

This statement is nonsensical.

Zig's answer to safety is based on a precise type system and a simple language that helps the programmer in their quest to write perfect code. If a kernel panics, that is either a bug or hardware failure.

[defen]

Rust also has runtime panics (e.g. indexing outside the bounds of a slice) - how does kernel Rust handle that?

[timeon]

Yes it would be better C, but compared to Rust, is that enough?