My comment also isn't really a comment about rust. It's about a common misconception that the unix/linux kernel somehow talks in "C".
Libc talks in C, most of the other libraries talking for interfacing with the kernel talk in C. The kernel speaks it's own language that has no special relation to C at all.
Except that you'll be hard pressed to find a syscall without an accompanying C library. It's common for other languages to build upon that rather than call the syscalls directly. Specially during the early days of a new kernel feature.
This article has nothing to do with Rust. Bringing Rust up like this is inappropriate, and looks bad on the Rust community. It fuels an "us vs them" mentality, and doesn't win over any hearts nor minds. It often hardens them, instead.
I'd argue that Rust is much closer to C++ than to C or ML.
Rust was designed by C++ programmers, to replace code that was previously written in C++. The concept that most guides its design is the idea of "zero cost abstractions", which a very C++ thing as well. ML doesn't mind if abstractions have a cost, while C is a smaller and more spartan language.
