One drawback about Rust OSes right now is that they must use nightly Rust, and therefore, don't gain our stability guarantees. This is another form of immaturity.

I still wish they would have done it anyway, but oh well :)

On a technical level, there's nothing stopping you: we already have one serious project (Redox) and many, many hobby projects that exist.

They do have some rust showing up in their repos. It looks like its mostly bindings needed to run rust on the OS. I don't know what their long term goals with it are. I'm guessing they want it for writing high performance user space daemons or whatever the fuchsia equivalent is.

https://github.com/fuchsia-mirror?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=&type=&la...

Not OP but the reason I dislike Rust for OS/kernel development is that it's just too damn complicated. Kernels should be written in more conservative languages.

I haven't personally looked into the Rust based OS (I know it exists), but I can guarantee that they're using inline assembly, fighting with language features, working around limitations, and forgoing safety.

I'd be shocked if that isn't the case. I'm not saying that you can't build an OS in Rust or other languages, just that OS development is complicated enough without having to fight your language.

You just provided at least two good reasons. Add the ABI instability as a third and rust has struck out.