I understand you don't like rust. That's fair it's got pros and cons and some cool stuff and warts.
What i don't understand is the sheer level of anger it brings out in people. As one of those angry folks: what makes you so upset?
What i don't understand is the sheer level of anger it brings out in people. As one of those angry folks: what makes you so upset?
I'm not that opposed to Rust and think its an interesting language, but the more annoying parts of its fanbase really haven't done it any favors. The sort that comments on every new project not in Rust "why is this not in Rust" (this specific thing seems to have died down somewhat), ignores any progress in other languages or Rusts weaknesses when making comparisons and thinks "Everyone still writing C++ should be tried in Den Haag" is a perfectly fine contribution (yes, that's a real example. sadly)
This thread is full of "Linus hates C++" as if "the subset of C++ that can be used in the kernel is basically C" is an outright fabrication.
I may be oversampling on the fact that nearly every article about programming languages here is filled with people wondering what the point is though shrug.
It's IMHO a good example of "ignore any progress in other languages", because it was a lot more true back when the question of C++ in the kernel first came up than it would be today. Which is not to say that the kernel should add C++, Linus is fully allowed to still think c++ isn't a good choice or to personally dislike it.
And I'm very certain I've seen less intrusive pro-C++ spamming than I've seen for Rust. C++ hasn't been cool or hype in a long time, it's mostly on the defensive in such arguments. Even Go wasn't as bad IMHO, and that also had some hype factor.
EDIT:
> This thread is full of "Linus hates C++"
Ok, I skimmed the thread. There is one comment saying that, one saying "Linus wasn't a fan at the time". "Full of", sure.
My impression - not even remotely close. Mostly it is the subject of bashing.
Nothing against C++ just telling someone else to change languages is unhelpful.
To answer your question, I honestly don't have a strong opinion about Rust. I had to deal with it years ago when I needed to recompile parts of Firefox and back then it seemed OK but still a bit messy, like all new programming languages.
But I cannot shake the feeling that Rust has some very loud fanboys. The original mailing list entry is about Rust being merged into Linux-next. C++ and Java are already in there, too [1]. So while that is a great preparatory step for Rust, it's not the big breakthrough that it is presented as. By now, I've read so many articles that overstated the benefits of Rust (e.g. "zero cost abstractions" - which then fail to optimize) that I immediately become suspicious if something is news purely because it relates to Rust.
And w.r.t. my second statement. The original article thanks Google for their generous funding. Which is true. Rust did receive generous funding from many sources, because companies who need a safer alternative to C / C++ tend to like it. And I believe that is a factor which contributes to Rust being merged into linux-next while other languages weren't. Rust has the necessary funding to do the preparatory work.
[1] Java(tm) Binary Kernel Support for Linux https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/admin-guide/java.html
The kernel has extensible support for execve-ing files the kernel doesn't directly understand as binaries by forwarding them to another program that behaves as an interpreter, the binfmt-misc machinery. The docs you linked just give an example of configuring that for various types of Java files.
It is them who push the 'Rewrite it in Rust' message on projects without assessing the consequences of doing so; and they continue to use the above excuses of justifying it.