> If Rust was actually better, it would flow into the ground organically. Rust is flowing into the ground organically just fine, but in the kernel dev area peo

> If Rust was actually better, it would flow into the ground organically. Rust is flowing into the ground organically just fine, but in the kernel dev area people are actively stopping it. So the "organic" part is interfered with. Part of the time for good reasons, absolutely! But the rest of the cases do give off the "get off my lawn" vibe to me. A better analogy than yours would be "the new people came with a proposal for a new way to list and enforce the rules in the D&D group" IMO. Something that will improve the session but might still give you a culture shock of the new way of doing things. Seems like a more accurate analogy. > Being technically more memory safe doesn’t make people like it more. Microsoft and Google have stated that from 60% to 75% of all CVEs are memory-safety-based. Is that not good enough of a reason to fight against memory un-safety? Nobody is requiring you to "like" it -- more like "accept evidence backed with data by entities that work a lot with both C/C++ and Rust". > In the end we don’t need any more of a reason to stop rust other than “we don’t like rust”. That's not a merit-based or technical argument and such is not interesting. Why mention it? > Proper tooling with C can prevent memory issues, taking away the main argument for rust. Banning driving under the influence of alcohol can prevent numerous tragic car crashes. Worked beautifully, right?