[kalekold]

> This is NOT because I hate Rust. While not my favourite language it's definitively one of the best new ones and I encourage people to use it for new projects where it fits. I do not want it anywhere near a huge C code base that I need to maintain.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Why do rust developers demand everything be re-written in their language? Especially one of the longest running, largest and most successful C projects of all time? It was never going to work out.

There are a few brand new operating systems being developed in rust, why not contribute to them instead?

[dmm]

> Why do rust developers demand everything be re-written in their language?

I'm pretty sure Torvalds is the one who decided to add Rust to the Linux kernel.

> I was expecting updates to be faster, but part of the problem is that old-time kernel developers are used to C and don't know Rust. They're not exactly excited about having to learn a new language that is, in some respects, very different. So there's been some pushback on Rust. - Linus Torvalds https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-talks-ai-rust-a...

[kalekold]

> I'm pretty sure Torvalds is the one who decided to add Rust to the Linux kernel.

No it really wasn't. He just said let's see how it goes when the rust devs proposed it.

[arp242]

Reading that thread, Hellwig is not against Rust for Linux, but rather against using it in core systems. He's okay with it in e.g. drivers.

The notion of "Linus accepted Rust in kernel, therefore it can be used everywhere" is a major point of conflict.

Also note the interview you linked continues with "Another reason has been the Rust infrastructure itself has not been super stable".