> C++ has implicit allocation Ah, but see, it doesn't. Linus was wrong about many things in his rant. This being one of them. Now the standard library does in

> C++ has implicit allocation Ah, but see, it doesn't. Linus was wrong about many things in his rant. This being one of them. Now the standard library does indeed have things that do implicit allocations, such as std::string. But these, like with Rust, are distinct from the language & replaceable. Would it be effort to make a kernel-safe std:: replacement? Yes. Would it be a lot of work? Not really. And it's the kind of thing Linux has been doing for decades with C anyway. It's not like they use a standard libc implementation (much less a rich libc implementation like glibc), for example. And it's something game devs have been doing with C++ for decades without any issues, too. So for this one you don't even have to ban anything. Just don't pass a standard library implementation to the compiler. It doesn't come with one, after all. You have to add it. So you could just... Not do that. As for nobody did the work... That's true. But Linus also pretty much nuked the entire concept of using C++, regardless of the what or how. Time seems to have changed his mindset on some of those things, hence his reaction to Rust, which largely makes all this moot. But we shouldn't confuse short term politics with technical issues, either.