> There are more wacky compromises listed than there are good ideas. I am happy to learn about other's opinions and especially contrary opinions, otherwise I w

> There are more wacky compromises listed than there are good ideas. I am happy to learn about other's opinions and especially contrary opinions, otherwise I would not have made a public post. I am myself not 100% sure that the idea will be successful, it would be stupid to think it certainly will; but the good thing is that the existing C code will be unaffected (or improved; for example https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20241129180326.722436-1-pbonzini@redhat.com/T/ https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20241129180326.722436-1-p... was found while looking at the code to write the corresponding Rust bindings). Sometimes you have to try crazy things. One perhaps controversial changes I headed in QEMU was to introduce the Meson build system. You may wonder what is wrong with me. I am happy to say that since then I have almost never had to ask a question about the build system, which was a very common occurrence before, and it has actually simplified the implementation of features such as custom device configuration, improved module loading, entitlement support for macOS, relocatable installs, autogenerated parsing of the configure command line, improvements to cross-compilation. While slightly reducing the number of lines of code compared to before. So I disagree that exploratory work is "a decade of insane effort". So I am curious, what are the wacky compromises?