2 ms·
> For any finite resource allocation, I see getting a GCC backend to be a priority for quick wins and then focus on gcc-rs as an experimental hedge against futu
by Narishma 5y ago
> For any finite resource allocation, I see getting a GCC backend to be a priority for quick wins and then focus on gcc-rs as an experimental hedge against future problems.
Doesn't that only work if it's the same people working on all those things? AFAIK, it's different people doing the different projects. You can't just re-assign open-source developers however you want.
- CUViper 5y agoYou can't directly re-assign those developers, but you can try to influence their decisions. It's not only about the current developers either, but also potential new contributors that may be considering either project.
- epage 5y agoYes, people can work on what they want and good for them, it helps build a healthy community. What my point is more about the conversation for the larger community of what we want to prioritize and put in the effort to support. If we have the opportunity to influence where people gravitate to, which should it be? If companies want to come in and sponsor work, where would we, as a community, want that to go? Also if gcc-rs "makes it", the cost will shift from that one or two developers to the whole community. We will need to test our projects against multiple versions of each frontend, our projects will need to advertize what they support, Rust will need to get compiler vendor and versions flags for us to conditionalize compilation to handle discrepancies and bugs, and crate authors will need to carry around these compiler conditionals.