> I personally cannot help but feel like the strong push for rust in the kernel is overstepping some sort of boundary. Assuming you're not a kernel developer,

> I personally cannot help but feel like the strong push for rust in the kernel is overstepping some sort of boundary. Assuming you're not a kernel developer, I don't understand why you need the feel to be offended in their stead, as they don't really seem to mind at all. > Zig, D, Ada (i) not yet stable; (ii) torn apart between two runtimes, not really GC-free; (iii) has a... complicated toolchain story, and basically didn't exist in a free/libre aspect on PC until very recently – and didn't/doesn't compile on 90% of Linux targets. > The only reason there is a push for Rust so much harder than anything else can only be explained by the community and their almost aggressive spirit of "if its not written in Rust, it should be". No, the only reason there is a push for Rust in the kernel is because people are interested enough to write the code to get Rust in the kernel. > it does rub me the wrong way and makes me stop and think a little bit when one particular language is held on such a gigantic pedestal. Maybe you should stop and think a little bit on why kernel developers, arguably among the most competent ones on this subject, put Rust on what you perceive as a ‶gigantic pedestal″.