2 ms·
>>> but it is also important to consider the amount of time it actually takes to implement either. >No one has said otherwise and the article even explicitly ad
by R0b0t1 6y ago
>>> but it is also important to consider the amount of time it actually takes to implement either.
>No one has said otherwise and the article even explicitly addresses this.
What do you mean by this? The article might reference it (I don't see any reference to this), but if it does it doesn't actually explore what factors would influence costs and their magnitude.
That's what I'm looking for.
- staticassertion 6y agoI mean that your statement implies that people are advising to perform expensive work without considering the cost, specifically the cost in terms of time, and that's not true. No one has said that. The article addresses cost in a number of places - maybe not explicitly the cost of time, but it seems weird to focus on that. The article explicitly addresses that it's not so simple to just rewrite a codebase: > Moving a large codebase to a new programming language is extremely difficult. If people want to convert QEMU to Rust that would be great, but I personally don't have the appetite to do it because I think the integration will be messy, result in a lot of duplication, and there is too much un(der)maintained code that is hard to convert.
- R0b0t1 6y agoThat's just a token mention of it instead of actually evaluating whether it will be problematic or not. I bring this up as he is probably one of the best people to evaluate this in detail and he didn't; lots of people here are acting like he did.