this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
89 points (100.0% liked)
Linux
6786 readers
189 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system
Also check out:
Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Basically just "but two languages is HARD"
I'd even have sympathy for this argument that introducing another language is a major undertaking (and it is!) but Linux is already full of lots of other languages (Macros, Makefile, Shell, BPF, assembly languages, Perl, Python scripts...) and developers are willing to do the work to use a language that helps solve problems Linux cares about.
That's not a good argument. Most of these additional languages are used for separate things, like build scripts and stuff. They don't affect actual kernel code which is C and assembler language.
Your argument is completely specious. Re-read that list. Assembly is a second language in the kernel already, and really it's multiple languages, one per supported ISA. Perl and Python scripts are used to generate data tables; there are multiple build-time languages. eBPF is evaluated at runtime; the kernel contains bytecode loaders, JIT compilers, and capability management for it. The kernel has already paid the initial cost of setting up a chimeric build process which evaluates many different languages at many different stages.
Perhaps not, but if you’re a kernel developer, I believe you are obliged to understand your build system and tooling. The fact of the languages aren’t all used at runtime seems immaterial.
That said, I am no kernel developer, so take it with a grain of salt.