zlacker

I find the Rust community to be hostile towards any inquisitive questions about their claims of "guaranteed memory safety". I've argued before that C is probably a safer language in practise for the Linux kernel than Rust because you would have to contort and write non-idiomatic Rust, using FFI, or deal with C data structures that will hamper/remove a lot of Rust's memory safe benefits. Rust is also harder to read than C - especially if you are trying to keep a mental model of the bitmap layout in your head and just dealing with low level code.

Of course I've had many negative comments from "Rustaceans", with their defence of their negativity being "we don't like it when someone comes into our community".

It is a shame because Rust is a pretty cool language, but at this current rate I don't really see it being "the" systems programming language de jure.

I think Zig is probably a much better fit for writing a Kernel in a safer language. Again, rust programmers pile on and tell me that "zig isn't memory safe". We can't make use of other languages that bring safety benefits without the dog pile of "you should use Rust it's safe". Apparently nothing is safe other than Rust.