You are oversimplifying. Both of the languages being Turing-complete does not imply Rust being as good a choice for talking to hardware as C is. What I am getti

You are oversimplifying. Both of the languages being Turing-complete does not imply Rust being as good a choice for talking to hardware as C is. What I am getting at is: the imaginary Rust replacement for Linux may have ten times as much code as Linux does and be unmaintainable. Rust's safe mode eliminates the possibility for some classes of bugs, but this still does not imply the hypothetical Rust kernel would be more reliable than Linux. What I am getting at is: Rust is a quite different language than C, and the hypothetical Linux replacement in Rust could be buggier than Linux. Regarding the above, my message is not that I know that Rust is worse than C for some applications; but rather that Rust fans and C haters are not even addresing those points. pjmlp deftly avoided saying anything explicitly, but still he should for the sake of the discussion and decency at least try to address those points while making such distasteful comments as "Naturally it was only due to the current shortage of those mythical C developers that never make memory corruption mistakes.".