Wasn't there an article on here the other day talking about how Rust will never make it into the kernel as-is? The sentiment seemed to be that the kernel developers simply reject the idea of packaged code and many of the modern paradigms in Rust. I only had a chance to skim it but it made it sound like Rust in the kernel would be forced/relegated to a very different usage and style compared to the way it is written elsewhere.
Here's your problem. No, that is not an accurate summary of the discussion. And the whole point of the dialogue between the kernel maintainers and the Rust developers to figure out what needs to be done to make Rust suitable for inclusion in the kernel - which has already resulted to changes in the Rust toolchain and standard library. So
> Rust will never make it into the kernel as-is
Is about the most negative possible way to frame it while being technically true. Nobody is suggesting that Rust be included in the kernel "as-is", they're suggesting that Rust be included in the kernel, and having a dialogue about what would need to be done on both sides to make that possible.
Thanks. I’m not going to delete or edit my original comment, but I will say my question was meant in good faith without the intent to cast shade. I’m really surprised I was downvoted. I know next to nothing about rust beyond a fleeting hour or two I’ve spent with it, but I don’t think the way I phrased my comment was any worse than the off-handed remarks made in that article. Perhaps it’s neither here nor there but I’ve worked a lot lately. I’ve worked more than I care to admit for reasons completely beyond my control. I still try to keep up with stuff like this because I care. I love my work and this industry. I’m doing my best.
