3 ms·
There are a lot of memory safe languages; there are fewer that have (1) marginal runtime requirements, (2) transparent interop/FFI with existing C codebases, (3
by woodruffw 2y ago
There are a lot of memory safe languages; there are fewer that have (1) marginal runtime requirements, (2) transparent interop/FFI with existing C codebases, (3) enable both spatial and temporal memory safety without GC, and (4) have significant development momentum behind them. Rust doesn't have to be unique among these qualifications, but it's currently preeminent.
- deepsun 2y agoYes, but you assume all their projects need all 4 of these. I like Rust, but it's a bad choice for many areas (e.g. aforementioned application-level code). I'd expect serious decisions to at least take that into account.
- woodruffw 2y agoI’m not assuming anything of the sort. These are just properties that make Rust a nice target for automatic translation of C programs; there are myriad factors that guarantee that nowhere close to 100% of programs (C, application level, or otherwise) won’t be suitable for translation.