3 ms·
Having total freedom like the author appears to want would be a big negative in my book. Why would we want a bunch of different variations of Rust that have di
by destitude 7y ago
Having total freedom like the author appears to want would be a big negative in my book. Why would we want a bunch of different variations of Rust that have different capabilities and may not compile the same "Rust" source code? If you want to make changes to the underlying language you can either work through the accepted Mozilla path to language acceptance or create your own language based off of it with different name. I'm not quite sure what the author is hoping to gain.
- jeremyjh 7y agoOne use case would be for example a patch set to provide compatibility for architectures not supported by upstream. It can take years of heavy usage to get changes like that merged. For example Xtensa LLVM is still out of tree and Rust support would be for a long time as well.
- steveklabnik 7y agoRust provides the ability to use your own LLVM already in-tree, no need to patch.
- jeremyjh 7y agoI do not think Rust will “just work” on a completely new architecture without any changes. Xtensa is not a hypothetical example - there is a fork of Rust to support it: https://github.com/MabezDev/rust-xtensa https://github.com/MabezDev/rust-xtensa
- steveklabnik 7y agoYes, this is a good point, sometimes you need frontend changes too.