It’s been ten years since Rust 1.0, if that were to happen, we’d be seeing it now. But we don’t.

That makes no sense. It was much longer than 10 years before people considered C to be tech debt for example. Idk if it will be 10 years exactly, but we are seeing better languages emerging (Swift 6, Mojo, probably others) that provide the same safety guarantees and performance/use case profiles as Rust, but are vastly more ergonomic and lovely to use. I fear Linux was hasty integrating Rust because it will likely prevent them from integrating something better in the near future.

You’re the one that said ten years.

You're the one who said "ten years since Rust 1.0"

The person who they replied to stated a decade. This whole thing is pretty clear cut and dry.

Right, that’s when Rust was new and shiny. People who chase the latest new shiny thing don’t consider ten year old technology new and shiny, they’d have moved on years ago.

I said ten years from now...

but we do... 4 years after Rust, we got a first glimpse at Zig. Even today, there's a lot of people that believe that Zig would have been a better choice for the Linux kernel than Rust.

And the answer to "why now" is quite simple - Because of the whole Rust in kernel debate, people started scrutinizing the situation.

Then Zig people should be the focus of “this kids and their new shiny” criticism, not Rust.

People who become aware of something only when it’s being used by something huge also aren’t early adopters either. Rust has already been in the Windows kernel for years at this point, with none of this consternation.

C's been around for over 50 years. Yes, I would hope that something does replace replace Rust after 50 years.