You can complain about C as much as you want. But you still need to work around it.If they change, things break in every place you forgot to adjust. Rust or not. It's actually a shortcoming of C.
The problem is that for this to work, you need someone who is crazy passionate about Rust *and* C. This doesn't seem to exist.One Rust guy is leaving. In Linux. Because the gatekeeper there refuses to cooperate with them, not because they refuse to do additional work or maintenance.
It doesn't require an interface. Which is why it was rejected.The objects in question are not private in a monolithic kernel, that's part of the current design. They have to be shared, and that requires an interface.
Thats true and I was responding to your more general comment about "C developers" by that point who don't have the luxury of -std=gnuXX extensions.That's the POSIX interface, not what has to be used to implement the kernel.
You are saying that FreeBSD and Linux has subpar code quality compared to the typical embedded offerings (with the majority coming from India/China with maximum cost savings)? Haha, I dare you to post that on one of the respective mailing lists!Linux and FreeBSD make up a lot with reviews and testing, but code quality is definitely subpar if I compare it to typical embedded development today. Which is like the only remaining domain of C.
The majority of embedded devices don't even have a C++ compiler available from the vendor. I feel your view might be a little limited here.On a side note, a majority of the embedded projects I see are in C++ now, for such "trendy" features like type safety and const.