C-style syntax and community interest also favor Rust.
This spec argument has always seemed like a red-herring to me. Can you explain why the Ada spec would be a significant factor in this instance?
I think GC is optional with Ada, as far as I know the memory safety comes from raising exceptions (or refusing to compile) when it detects memory-unsafe operations (array bounds checking etc).
>C-style syntax and community interest also favor Rust.
That's fair, C-like languages are instantly familiar with software people and rust seems to have a more hip image than old man fuddy-duddy Ada.
>This spec argument has always seemed like a red-herring to me. Can you explain why the Ada spec would be a significant factor in this instance?
I'm not arguing for Ada over Rust (I'm not a software guy) so I don't mean it as a red herring, but wouldn't a suite of static verification tools and a formally verified compiler require a spec to be tested against?
I think a spec is often a red herring because a bunch of folks living in the slum of C, when asked if they would all like to move into Rust's nice 3 bedroom by the park, instead always seem to ask: Wouldn't it be better to form a committee about building us a cathedral? Ada might be better. Someone should try it, but until then I'll take Rust.
Remain interested in the potential advantages of Ada compared to Rust for Linux kernel development, if you would care to point me in the right direction.