> they know that if other languages that address one of the main rust claims without all the cruft gains popularity they lose the chance of being permanently embdedded in places like the kernel
First of all, I'm really opposed to saying "the kernel". I am sure you're talking about the Linux kernel, but there are other kernels (BSD, Windows etc.) that are certainly big enough to not call it "the" kernel, and that may also have their own completely separate "rust-stories".
Secondly, I think the logic behind this makes no sense, primarily because Rust at this point is 10 years old from stable and almost 20 years old from initial release; the adoption into the Linux kernel wasn't exactly rushed. Even if it was, why would Rust adoption in the Linux kernel exclude adoption of another language as well, or a switch to another, if it's better? The fact that Rust was accepted at all to begin with aside from C disproves the assumption, because clearly that kernel is open for "better" languages.
The _simplest_ explanation to why Rust has succeeded is that it's solves actual problems, not that "zealots" are lobbying for it to ensure they "have a job".
Rust is not stable even today! There is no spec, no alternative implementations, no test suite... "Stable" is what "current compiler compiles"! Existing code may stop compiling any day....
Maybe in 10 years it may become stable, like other "booring" languages (Golang and Java).
Rust stability is why Linus opposes its integration into kernel.
In the "other good news department", GCC is adding a Rust frontend to provide the alternative implementation, and I believe Rust guys accepted to write a specification for the language.
I'm waiting for gccrs to start using the language, actually.
First of all, I'm really opposed to saying "the kernel". I am sure you're talking about the Linux kernel, but there are other kernels (BSD, Windows etc.) that are certainly big enough to not call it "the" kernel, and that may also have their own completely separate "rust-stories".
Secondly, I think the logic behind this makes no sense, primarily because Rust at this point is 10 years old from stable and almost 20 years old from initial release; the adoption into the Linux kernel wasn't exactly rushed. Even if it was, why would Rust adoption in the Linux kernel exclude adoption of another language as well, or a switch to another, if it's better? The fact that Rust was accepted at all to begin with aside from C disproves the assumption, because clearly that kernel is open for "better" languages.
The _simplest_ explanation to why Rust has succeeded is that it's solves actual problems, not that "zealots" are lobbying for it to ensure they "have a job".