4 ms·
The point is: If Rust is supposed to replace as _the_ systems programming language, it needs to be as portable as C. There is no point in arguing what architec
by cbmuser 6y ago
The point is: If Rust is supposed to replace as _the_ systems programming language, it needs to be as portable as C.
There is no point in arguing what architectures are considered obscure and which are not since there a lot of fields of applications in industry and research which use architectures most people never heard of such as Elbrus 2000 or Sunway.
- pornel 6y agoRust doesn't need to replace 100% of C, just like C hasn't replaced 100% of Fortran or Pascal.
- DasIch 6y agoC is more portable than Rust when you define portable as "it compiles". If you define portable to mean "works correctly" I expect C is about as portable as Rust in the context of most applications.
- WoodenChair 6y ago> C is more portable than Rust when you define portable as "it compiles". If you define portable to mean "works correctly" I expect C is about as portable as Rust in the context of most applications. I suspect you have a more narrow definition of “works correctly” than the C advocates do.
- Jetrel 6y agoI do suspect that a lot of "our CI says this compiles on platform X" situations, for quite a few programs, are targeting arch/os combos that genuinely aren't getting tested, with only the occasional hobbyist poking at it every few months. It wouldn't surprise me at all of most of those just crash-on-launch - or crash when you try to do anything, even though the CI builds them just fine and they pass the automated tests. For an awful lot of boutique platforms, it's usually "literally one person" that drove the work to port it to that thing, and when that person's no longer actively doing the work, bitrot goes wild.