4 ms·

> Rust works around this with developer tooling; how does that work for companies that may use proprietary rust libraries? the proprietary lib authors won't re

• woodruffw 4y ago
  As pointed out, the C ABI is stable. If companies absolutely feel the need to distribute Rust shared libraries and cannot guarantee the compiler being used, then it's a reasonable choice. I suspect that isn't very common, however. More realistically, the answer is to change the interface: Rust is pretty popular in software architectures where the unit of operation is a networked or IPC'd service; vendors can distribute binaries that communicate at that layer instead.
  • jcelerier 4y ago
    > vendors can distribute binaries that communicate at that layer instead. they could do this in C++ also but they overwhelmingly don't, I don't see why they would in any other language for the same target applications
    • woodruffw 4y ago
      For one, because it's easier in Rust (this goes back to the developer experience and tooling again). But we've now gone from "here's how Rust and C++'s ABI guarantees differ" to "proprietary vendors might not have the easiest time in either language," which is a significant deviation.
  • saagarjha 4y ago
    The real answer is that Rust doesn’t really seek a solution for this problem. That’s fine, but C++ does and it pays an appropriate price for doing so. That’s just how things are.