4 ms·

Microsoft probably has tons of internal libraries that are modified and shared between many different teams spanning multiple orgs. I think a pivot like this i

Microsoft probably has tons of internal libraries that are modified and shared between many different teams spanning multiple orgs. I think a pivot like this is an incredibly complicated thing for a company like Microsoft to perform. It requires multiple years of planning from the ground up to port internal libraries and tooling, train engineers on Rust best practices. Not to mention the tricky business of going around and hiring Rust developers at the scale MS needs. :) I think, simply waking up one day and changing the language / frameworks / tools used by your company is a privilege only smaller companies and startups might enjoy.

ilovecaching 8y ago
I would imagine that we would at least hear about Microsoft doing some new projects in Rust, or at least using it in some capacity to understand the cost/benefits better. I'm sure the first step would be increasing C++ interop.
- sanxiyn 8y ago
  > I would imagine that we would at least hear about Microsoft doing some new projects in Rust We did.
duneroadrunner 8y ago
Replacing existing unsafe C++ elements with compatible memory safe substitutes[1] might be more expedient. The conversion can even be automated[2] for parts of the code that aren't performance critical. [1] shameless plug: https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus [2] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTranslation https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTransla...
- ilovecaching 8y ago
  I'm not a fan of these types of efforts. You could be putting energy into making Rust better. Memory management aside, C++ has become an incomprehensible mess filled with cruft. Rust does much more than provide safety, it provides better abstractions, a better type system, and actual tooling. Building tools for C++ to keep the ship afloat just means we have to deal with writing C++ longer.

ilovecaching 8y ago

I would imagine that we would at least hear about Microsoft doing some new projects in Rust, or at least using it in some capacity to understand the cost/benefits better. I'm sure the first step would be increasing C++ interop.

sanxiyn 8y ago
> I would imagine that we would at least hear about Microsoft doing some new projects in Rust We did.

duneroadrunner 8y ago

Replacing existing unsafe C++ elements with compatible memory safe substitutes[1] might be more expedient. The conversion can even be automated[2] for parts of the code that aren't performance critical. [1] shameless plug: https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus [2] https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTranslation https://github.com/duneroadrunner/SaferCPlusPlus-AutoTransla...

ilovecaching 8y ago
I'm not a fan of these types of efforts. You could be putting energy into making Rust better. Memory management aside, C++ has become an incomprehensible mess filled with cruft. Rust does much more than provide safety, it provides better abstractions, a better type system, and actual tooling. Building tools for C++ to keep the ship afloat just means we have to deal with writing C++ longer.