• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      187 hours ago

      It is hard when you mix them in one codebase and need bindings and wrappers for interoperability. This always introduces additional work and maintenance burden. It’s always a tradeoff and for most projects not worth the effort. Tech corporations that do this regularly have dedicated teams to deal with boilerplate bullshit and tooling issues, so that regular devs can just code with minimal friction. Rust-in-Linux community decided to take it upon themselves, but I’m not sure if they can keep it up for years and decades in the future.

      Though gradually getting of C is still a good idea. Millions of lines of C code is a nightmare codebase.

      • burgersc12
        link
        fedilink
        English
        117 hours ago

        Yeah, even Linus said he wasn’t 100% sure it was gonna succeed but how else do you know unless you try it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      108 hours ago

      I’d even have sympathy for this argument that introducing another language is a major undertaking (and it is!) but Linux is already full of lots of other languages (Macros, Makefile, Shell, BPF, assembly languages, Perl, Python scripts…) and developers are willing to do the work to use a language that helps solve problems Linux cares about.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        147 hours ago

        That’s not a good argument. Most of these additional languages are used for separate things, like build scripts and stuff. They don’t affect actual kernel code which is C and assembler language.