> Given he authored the D programming language, he is absolutely aware of the benefits of managing memory allocation, runtime checks for boundary overruns, etc

> Given he authored the D programming language, he is absolutely aware of the benefits of managing memory allocation, runtime checks for boundary overruns, etc etc... No doubt about that, but the proposal still does not address these issues while claiming it's an easy fix. > It turns out when developing a kernel extremely fine, granular control, over memory is very important. And there are a lot of complexities that fall between the cracks of various architectures where a compiler and language having an extremely long track-record of behavior is helpful I do not mean that the fine-grained control over memory is useless for developing a entire kernel, I mean that a large part of a kernel is made of logic that does not need this fine-grained control. My point is that using unsafe fine-grained control over memory everywhere is risky, while we could keep fine-grained control over memory languages only where it's required. > but it seems like everything is viewed through a RUST looking glass these days, and all answers and roads lead to RUST. True, it's worth noting that Rust is not mature yet and is not easy to use