> I don't think it's fair to say Rust is still a research language any more than it's fair to see the ongoing evolution of C++ makes it a research language I w

> I don't think it's fair to say Rust is still a research language any more than it's fair to see the ongoing evolution of C++ makes it a research language I would accept that. The idea that C++ code from ten years ago can't always interoperate with C++ code written today is indeed a problem, but I think it's a very different problem that you're running into if you're trying to use Rust applications and libraries built ten years ago. > there's a cost to being stuck with only C, which manifests as security vulnerabilities and high cognitive overhead for want of better abstractions There's also a cost with abstractions. People who use Rust thinking it has "zero-cost abstractions" should probably get help crossing the street as well. > I believe the Linux maintainers are taking a sensible and conservative stance here in allowing use of Rust, but not allowing Linux to depend on it. 100% agreed. Rust may indeed be the future, but the only way we'll know for sure is if we try it.