I don't think it's that unfair, but I don't want to get into a whole thing about it, people get really upset about criticisms of the Linux kernel in my experience and I'm not looking to start my morning off with that conversation.
We can agree that C was definitely the language to be doing these things in and I don't blame Linus for choosing it.
My point wasn't to shit on Linux for its decisions, it was to think about a hypothetical world where safety built in from the start.
why not ada? Sure rust didn't exist when linux was first being built, but ada did and had a number of memory safety features. (not the same as rust's, but still better than C)
The "historical anecdote" is that somewhen around kernel 0.99, C++ was tried. And given up due to both compiler bugs and (worse) abysmal compilation performance.
For all I know about Ada, the latter has a reputation for "non-speed" on compile worse than C++ even. Nevermind that gnats (gcc ada integration) post-dates Linux by a few years.
Of course, it could simply be that Linus looked, got an allergic fit, and hence didn't bother ...
