3 ms·

There's no point. Rust can already be added incrementally in an existing C++ or C project. Like how Servo was in Firefox, or Rust in the Linux kernel.

• jujube3 2y ago
  Why was this downvoted? It's not just another generic "rewrite it in Rust" comment. I was making a specific point that incremental rewrites of existing C++ code are very possible in Rust. And that process would not be that different from rewriting the code in a "safe" dialect of C++. If it makes you feel better you can rename the Rust language to "C++2.0" but the rewrite process itself will be the same in both cases. You keep expanding the amount of safe code you have within the codebase over time, one module at a time.
  • steveklabnik 2y ago
    Your first sentence comes across as incredibly combative, and not everyone agrees. Personally, that's why I downvoted it. It would be a much better comment if it was the same thing without it. For example, one advantage of this strategy as opposed to an incremental Rust re-write is that you would retain a single toolchain, whereas that would require having two.
    • jujube3 2y ago
      Is it actually a single toolchain? I was not clear on that from reading the article. Anyway, all I can say is that having used both C++ and Rust for many years, I have zero desire to use another C++ toolchain.
      • steveklabnik 2y ago
        Yes, it's an extension to C++, so as it is implemented now in Circle, and as it would be if it were to be standardized, it would be part of the regular toolchain.