> Rust in Linux has a known constantly showing negative consequence
It'd make your argument a lot stronger if you can actually list some of these negative consequences. "Another languages to the stack" and "Different than C" is just complaining about change because it is change.
What negatives have already been shown that isn't just about "This isn't C"?
Mixing any two languages in any single code base creates significant friction at the boundaries, and adds new degrees of complexity in major areas (build system, tooling, debugging...). If we're talking about a project as complex as a production OS kernel, this kind of a decision should never be taken lightly. It's a much smaller step from 2 to 10 than from 1 to 2.
> It's a much smaller step from 2 to 10 than from 1 to 2.
But here, you're already starting with 2: C and assembly. Besides inline assembly, a small but very important part of the Linux kernel is written in assembly on every architecture: the system call entry point (entry.S) and the kernel entry point (head.S). And if you consider each architecture's assembly as a separate language, it's more like 10 languages than 2 languages. I'm always impressed whenever I see changes to for instance signal handling or thread flags which touch not only the common code in C, but also the entry point assembly code for each one of the many architectures Linux supports; whoever does these changes need to not only know the assembly language for all these architectures, but also have at hand all the corresponding tooling and emulators to compile and test the changes.
You do have a point, however (as you noted) the lowest-level bits of an OS kernel are practically impossible to build (and subsequently, maintain) without precise control over the machine code; you can't even start a hobby OS kernel project without relying on assembly. It's a part of the deal; a pure-assembly kernel is more feasible than one without any. You also (as you pointed out) still have to be mindful about the C-asm boundary; the integration doesn't come free.
The story here is pretty different: integrate a new, high-level language into a 30 year old, 30mil SLOC, production code base, that billions of people rely on every day, AND actually extract some value from that work.
A very obvious one is that by adding another language, you are adding more complexity.
It's not as if C is going to disappear from the kernel as it's something like 25 million lines of C code, and if Rust was to be supported, the current C experts who are maintaining various subsystems will now also have to become Rust experts, so that they can effectively accept or reject code contributions in that language.
Personally it just seems illogical, better to make a new kernel in Rust is you really want to use that language, than converting small parts of a HUGE C kernel. Google has been pushing for the inclusion of Rust into the kernel, it's weird that they are not writing their own shiny new Fuchsia OS kernel in Rust, instead of C++.
It's funny how frequent people bring this up, but the truth is simple, check here [1]. Zircon kernel is not new [2], it has been in development for a while now. By the time the started to work on the microkernel, Rust 1.0 was really new, so they would've to implement several things from ground up. There's a implementation of Zircon in rust called zCore [3], but I don't know how stable and feature complete this one is.
It'd make your argument a lot stronger if you can actually list some of these negative consequences. "Another languages to the stack" and "Different than C" is just complaining about change because it is change.
What negatives have already been shown that isn't just about "This isn't C"?