Linux Kernel in D?

[qznc via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 at 16:22:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 11/01/2016 09:41 AM, Wild wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 1 November 2016 at 12:12:29 UTC, Heisenberg wrote:
>>> Just an idea. Do you think it would have any advantage 
>>> compared to the
>>> one that is written in C?
>>
>> I think it wouldn't really be worth it.
>
> I tend to think the same but for different reasons. Currently 
> the Linux kernel is a large mature product that has its own 
> evolution. It would be very difficult to reimplement it from 
> first principles in any other language and get a competitive, 
> timely product.
>
> As an intellectual exercise, D's safety would help but at this 
> point impart little advantage; the kernel has reached good 
> stability and safety bugs are few and far across. This trend is 
> likely for the foreseeable future.

Security is a big topic for Linux: 
https://lwn.net/Articles/662219/

Mostly the problem are drivers. They are produced hastily by 
careless companies without the scrutiny of the core kernel parts 
(like scheduler, file system, etc). I think D might help there, 
because it could enforce @safe or other properties onto the 
drivers.

Nevertheless, I don't see a successful D kernel in the 
foreseeable future. Building a kernel for IoT devices is trendy, 
but you want a lot more portability for that and C compilers are 
everywhere. On the server, you could build a hypervisor OS with 
D, but currently containers are hyped so much more. You'd only 
have a chance, if you also port the JVM onto your D-OS. Still, 
where is the advantage to Linux?