Linux

For those who failed to read TA, Linus appears to finally have read the PR and decided that what was indeed submitted was client code. No, he's not forcing subsystem maintainers to adopt Rust; he's saying they can't object to clients using Rust.

The fact is, the pull request you objected to DID NOT TOUCH THE DMA LAYER AT ALL.

"The document claims no subsystem is forced to take Rust"

that is very much true.

but as a result they also won't have any say on what goes on on the Rust side.

there's that "wall of protection" around C developers that don't want to deal with Rust issues in the promise that they don't have to deal with Rust.

If you don't want to deal with the Rust code, you get no say on the Rust code.

I didn't read the patches, but what I see is that Linus believes that the original objection to the PR was wrong. He's asserting that subsystem maintainers who choose to not interact with client code get no say in whether the code is merged or not.

What he's not saying is that subsystem maintainers have to start including Rust in the subsystems; this isn't Linus forcing people to adopt Rust.

What I find most interesting about this is the whole premise of allowing Rust into the main tree. I'm sure there was a process, but does that mean now the wedge is in the door and people can start arguing about including Haskell? It would seem to me that once you make an exception, your argument for rejecting other languages becomes weaker. Why not Ada? It's at least as memory safe - if not more - than Rust. Haskell programs can be provably correct, and there are tools for these proofs. This is an even more powerful argument for Haskell over Rust - it's as memory safe, but also provide Curry-Howard correspondence, which Rust doesn't. Is it a popularity contest? What about Zig, which is in the Rust ballpark for safety, but vastly superior compile times (and, arguably a more simple mental model)? Odin? These are all type-safe, compiled languages without a runtime (hence, no Go).