5 ms·

It's unfortunate that Rust has adopted development policies that are so hostile towards bootstrapping and cross-compiling rustc. The fact that most of the peop

It's unfortunate that Rust has adopted development policies that are so hostile towards bootstrapping and cross-compiling rustc. The fact that most of the people cheerleading for Rust the ecosystem don't even see this as a problem is enough to convince me to steer clear of anything involving Rust the language. You don't have a real language until there is a stable specification and multiple independent implementations. Until then it's just an experimental toy.

monocasa 6y ago
You can't build GCC on MSVC or vis versa. And people do see the pain here as a problem, that's why the project in this very thread exists. I think most in the Rust community see mrustc and the pressure that an independent implementation brings process wise as a very good thing for the language.
- my123 6y ago
  At least some years ago, you could build GCC on MSVC just fine. (Did it for GCC 3.3 and 4.2 on Interix way back then) It should probably be still functional, or easily fixed if not.
rowanG077 6y ago
Ah yes! The experimental toy languages without specification like Python.
- fao_ 6y ago
  I'm sorry, what are PEPs, again?
  - rowanG077 6y ago
    PEPs are specification fragments. But it's far from a complete python language specification.
- kiwidrew 6y ago
  CPython is the only viable Python interpreter, and the Python language specification is "whatever CPython does". In my humble opinion this disqualifies Python from consideration as a language. That doesn't mean Python isn't useful! It is in fact a wildly successful tool that has spawned a large ecosystem of packages and a diverse group of users. But it unfortunately does not qualify as a true language, for it lacks the necessary ingredients: a formal specification of the language and more than one implementation of said specification.
coldtea 6y ago
>is enough to convince me to steer clear of anything involving Rust the language. This has a "I will cancel my subscription" letters to the editor feel, as if anyone cares :-) I mean, there are pros and cons to any language and ecosystem. "I found some fault in bootstrapping approach and will condemn the whole language/effort for it" is a hardly a reasonable argument... As if regular devs often have a need to bootstrap from scratch themselves...

monocasa 6y ago

You can't build GCC on MSVC or vis versa. And people do see the pain here as a problem, that's why the project in this very thread exists. I think most in the Rust community see mrustc and the pressure that an independent implementation brings process wise as a very good thing for the language.

my123 6y ago
At least some years ago, you could build GCC on MSVC just fine. (Did it for GCC 3.3 and 4.2 on Interix way back then) It should probably be still functional, or easily fixed if not.

rowanG077 6y ago

Ah yes! The experimental toy languages without specification like Python.

fao_ 6y ago
I'm sorry, what are PEPs, again?
- rowanG077 6y ago
  PEPs are specification fragments. But it's far from a complete python language specification.
kiwidrew 6y ago
CPython is the only viable Python interpreter, and the Python language specification is "whatever CPython does". In my humble opinion this disqualifies Python from consideration as a language. That doesn't mean Python isn't useful! It is in fact a wildly successful tool that has spawned a large ecosystem of packages and a diverse group of users. But it unfortunately does not qualify as a true language, for it lacks the necessary ingredients: a formal specification of the language and more than one implementation of said specification.

coldtea 6y ago

>is enough to convince me to steer clear of anything involving Rust the language. This has a "I will cancel my subscription" letters to the editor feel, as if anyone cares :-) I mean, there are pros and cons to any language and ecosystem. "I found some fault in bootstrapping approach and will condemn the whole language/effort for it" is a hardly a reasonable argument... As if regular devs often have a need to bootstrap from scratch themselves...