Zig is a very new and immature language. It won't be kernel-ready for at l'East another 10 years.

a better syntax

That's pretty suggestive. Rust syntax is pretty good. Postfix try is just better for example.

Zig also uses special syntax for things like error and nullability instead of having them just be enums, making the language more complex and less flexible for no benefit.

Syntax is also not everything. Rust has extremely good error messages. Going through Zig's learning documentation, half the error messages are unreadable because I have to scroll to see the actual error and data because it's on the same line as the absolute path as the file were the error comes from

No hidden memory allocation

That's a library design question, not a language question. Rust for Linux uses its own data collections that don't perform hidden memory allocations instead of the ones from the standard library.

it's more readable

I don't know, Rust is one of the most readablelangueage for me.

Fast compile time

Is it still the case once you have a very large project and make use of comptime?

it's simpler to learn

Not true. Because it doesn't have the guardrails that rust has, you must build a mental model of where the guardrails should be so you don't make mistakes. Arguably this is something that C maintainers already know how to do, but it's also not something they do flawlessly from just looking at the bugs that regularly need to be fixed.

Being able to write code faster does not equate being able to write correct code faster.

Really great interop with C

Yes, because it's basically C with some syntax sugar. Rust is a Generational change.

I also dont like videos for this stuff. Summarized using kagi's universal summarizer, sharing here:

• The integration of Rust into the Linux kernel has been a contentious topic, with some long-term maintainers resisting the changes required for memory-safe Rust code.
• The debate over Rust vs. C in the Linux kernel has taken on "almost religious overtones" in certain areas, reflecting the differing design philosophies and expectations.
• Linus Torvalds sees the Rust discussion as a positive thing, as it has "livened up some of the discussions" and shows how much people care about the kernel.
• Not everyone in the kernel community understands everything about the kernel, and specialization is common - some focus on drivers, others on architectures, filesystems, etc. The same is true for Rust and C.
• Linus does not think the Rust integration is a failure, as it's still early, and even if it were, that's how the community learns and improves.
• The challenge is that Rust's memory-safe architecture requires changes to the existing infrastructure, which some long-time maintainers, like the DRM subsystem people, are resistant to.
• The Linux kernel has developed a lot of its own memory safety infrastructure over time for C, which has allowed incremental changes, whereas the Rust changes are more "in your face."
• Despite the struggles with Rust integration, Linus believes Linux is so widely used and entrenched that alternative "bottom-up grown-up from the start Rust kernels" are unlikely to displace it.
• Linus sees the embedded/IoT space as an area where alternative kernels built around different languages like Rust may emerge, but does not see Linux losing its dominance as a general-purpose OS.
• Overall, Linus views the Rust debate as a positive sign of the community's passion and an opportunity to learn, even if the integration process is challenging.