Whilst it’s gotten a lot better in the -17 and -20 iterations, the fact that there was recently a doorstop book published solely on the subject of C++ initialisation semantics is pretty telling.

I really like what Herb Sutter’s doing around cppfront; I still wouldn’t use C++ unless I absolutely had to.

To add something to this: linux has avoided internal SPIs for a long time. It’s often lauded as one of the reasons it hasn’t ossified.

However, some subsystems have a huge amount of complexity and hidden constraint in how you correctly use them. Some of that may be inherent, but more of it will be accidental.

Wrapping type-erased shims around this that attempt to capture (some of) those semantics shines a light onto the problem. The effort raises good technical questions around whether the C layer can be improved. Where maintainers have approached that with an open mind, the results are positive for both C and Rust consumers. Difficult interfaces are a source of bugs; it’s always worth asking whether that difficulty is inherent or accidental.

https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/2025021954-flaccid-pucker-f7d9@gregkh/

You’re wrong, but it’s possible the article gave you that impression. Read the mailing-list thread.

It’s particularly worth reading Ted T’so’s contribution, which (considering his rude behaviour at the recent con led to a previous round of this nonsense) seems much more positive.

What’s in your mind does not coincide with the professional experience of Greg KH. You shoyld read what he had to say on the subject.