>As to C, nothing better has come around.
>The kind of languages people see under active development aren't for low-level system programming.
I found it interesting that he didn't mention Rust. Or is Rust not suitable for kernel development?
>The kind of languages people see under active development aren't for low-level system programming.
I found it interesting that he didn't mention Rust. Or is Rust not suitable for kernel development?
> To anyone who wants to build their own kernel from scratch, I can just wish them luck. It's a huge project, and I don't think you actually solve any of the really hard kernel problems with your choice of programming language. The big problems tend to be about hardware support (all those drivers, all the odd details about different platforms, all the subtleties in memory management and resource accounting), and anybody who thinks that the choice of language simplifies those things a lot is likely to be very disappointed.