> If you mean that not using Rust (or maybe some other languages e.g. Zig or Ada?) means that there can be no innovation in the Linux kernel, I would have to disagree since there's been plenty of progress in plain old c.
No i didn't mean that. If i understand OP correctly here, he argued that it is a tax to use rust, a tax is always bad, and thous should be avoided.
We obviously can't now the future. We also can't now how future maintainers look like, and if there will be a bigger abundance of people understanding kernel level C or kernel level Rust or both.
I also don't think that any one developer can claim to fully get every part of the Linux Kernel. So if one person want's to work on a particular subsection they need to make themself familiar with it, independent of the language used. And then we are back at the argument, is the additional tax bad, or what does it bring to the table.
No i didn't mean that. If i understand OP correctly here, he argued that it is a tax to use rust, a tax is always bad, and thous should be avoided.
We obviously can't now the future. We also can't now how future maintainers look like, and if there will be a bigger abundance of people understanding kernel level C or kernel level Rust or both.
I also don't think that any one developer can claim to fully get every part of the Linux Kernel. So if one person want's to work on a particular subsection they need to make themself familiar with it, independent of the language used. And then we are back at the argument, is the additional tax bad, or what does it bring to the table.