Rust would prevent a number of bugs, as it can model state machine guarantees as well.

Rewriting it all in Rust is extremely expensive, so it won't be done (soon).

Expensive because of: 1/ a re-write is never easy 2/ rust is specifically tough (because it catches error and forces you to think about it for real, because it makes some contruct (linked list) really hard to implement) for kernel/close to kernel code ?

▲

IshKebab 2 days ago | parent [-]

Both I'd say. Rust imposes more constraints on the structure of code than most languages. The borrow checker really likes ownership trees whereas most languages allow any ownership graph no matter how spaghetti it is.

As far as I know that's why Microsoft rewrote Typescript in Go instead of Rust.

▲

wiz21c 19 hours ago | parent [-]

I've been using rust for several years now and I like the way you explain the essence of the issue: tree instead of spaghetti :-)

However: https://www.reddit.com/r/typescript/comments/wbkfsh/which_pr...

so looks like it's not written in go :-)

	▲	IshKebab 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> so looks like it's not written in go :-) That post is three years old, before the rewrite.