2 ms·
That isn't the motivation. It's about "resilience, performance and maintainability". I doubt they'll get noticeably better performance (the main GNU tools are
by IshKebab 2y ago
That isn't the motivation. It's about "resilience, performance and maintainability".
I doubt they'll get noticeably better performance (the main GNU tools are already very optimised). I'm not sure they really lack in resilience. And I don't think memory safety is a big factor here.
Maintenance is definitely a big plus though. It will be much nicer to work on modern Rust code than ancient C.
- immibis 2y agoTo clarify, you think the obvious benefit that is something several organizations obviously want isn't the motivation, but improvements to 3 things that probably won't be improved are the real motivations?
- psd1 2y agoHow much maintenance do the tools need currently, and how does it compare to the effort? i am surprised by the implication
- codeguro 2y agoIf you look a bit deeper, this project actually cares deeply about its license, and is going out of its way to choose the license it is using, ignore complaints, and avoid ending up GPL. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qTyyMyU2hQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qTyyMyU2hQ In an interview with FOSS Weekly, Sylvestre Ledru (the main developer, who curiously has a background working on Debian and Firefox, before ending up getting seduced by the clang/LLVM ecosystem), firmly states "it is not about security".