[pjmlp]

Yet another Rust article that ignores the choice among memory safe languages, including the ML linage that inspired Rust's type system.

The only reason to pick Rust instead of one of those, is exactly because the memory safety without GC that it offers, when any form of automatic resource management, be it in whatever form, is not possible, or welcomed by the domain experts.

[baranul]

In agreement, that this looks like a false dichotomy being presented to readers, C-derived versus Rust. First, Rust is usually considered or positioned as a C-family language, despite its ML connection. Second, in the context of C alternatives, there are many other memory-safe languages (Golang, Vlang, Dlang, etc...). Third, the context of when Rust is really needed (as a high-level language), is few.

Many of the high level features that Rust offers, outside of memory-safety, other C-family languages have too. And those other languages can have different advantages over Rust: easier to learn, easier to use, readability, compilation speed, etc... Very much a depends type of thing.

[timeon]

Article is about C. So non-GC memory safe language, as first, choice makes sense here.

[pjmlp]

Not really, there are tons of software written in C that should have never came close to a C compiler in first place.

Even the UNIX and C authors agree with this, given what they worked on, in OS design and programming languages post C.

Something that many glance over, what have their UNIX idols actually done after UNIX System V.

Thus the first question already is that kernel code or not, and if not, why should it be written in C versus any other safer alternative.

Actual reasons like performance numbers required by the application, or existing SDK availability, not the "because I like it".