Do you mean legitimate, instead of serious? The issue you point out sounds more like technical debt and verification/specification rather than something that can’t or won’t be overcome.
Yes i meant legitimate, though i'm not sure why you say that it sounds like technical debt. I'd say it is the opposite - trying to avoid technical debt that could happen by betting on something unknown and instead staying on the safe side.
I meant technical debt for the Rust project, not for fuchsia. I don’t disagree, Fuchsia would end up incurring this debt in the kernel too.
I would say, that as debt goes, this seems like something not egregious, but I can understand not wanting to take it on. But, with every passing year and no significant flaws having been discovered (I mean language destroying not some of the unsoundness bugs that exist), empirical evidence is getting stronger and stronger that Rust has an excellent model.
Do you mean legitimate, instead of serious? The issue you point out sounds more like technical debt and verification/specification rather than something that can’t or won’t be overcome.