3 ms·
The way I read the parent comment was as in; replacing C/C++ with Rust as a choice for language going forward, not replacing existing C/C++ code bases with Rust
by pan69 2y ago
The way I read the parent comment was as in; replacing C/C++ with Rust as a choice for language going forward, not replacing existing C/C++ code bases with Rust.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- faitswulff 2y agoThat’s fair, I think I might have been interpreting it as a call to “rewrite it in rust.”
- p_ing 2y agoIn the video, Mark talks about Microsoft investing in replacing certain portions of Windows/Office/Azure going C/C++/C# [eliminate GC, SharePoint being mentioned] with Rust. Primarily in security-critical areas, but one of the first points in Windows was font handling, a huge security issue for Windows historically.
- jcranmer 2y agoThere are definitely some regions of existing code where legitimately replacing the existing C/C++ functions with Rust is justifiable on its own. The big one I can think of is parsing code--things like parsing fonts (as sibling mentions) or A/V codecs are things that have historically been replete with exploitable memory safety issues and are reliably untrusted data.
- csdreamer7 2y agoThreading is another case. The Asahi's gpu Tust driver was able to avoid a lot of threading issues because of Rust.