3 ms·
No, and there's been a lot of confusion about that on this website. They did cite Rust's safety as a motivating factor for the port. That doesn't imply trying
by veidr 5mo ago
No, and there's been a lot of confusion about that on this website.
They did cite Rust's safety as a motivating factor for the port. That doesn't imply trying to achieve that simultaneously with the language change — which is good, because that would be insane. (Or, if you prefer, even more insane.)
You cannot faithfully port a codebase to a new language while also radically re-architecting it. You have to choose.
They want the safety benefits of Rust going forward; i.e., after it's finished, when they then write new code in Rust.
- swiftcoder 5mo agoYeah, exactly. The typical approach is to do a mechanical translation such as with rust2c, that is full of unsafe, and then gradually refactor safety in.
- Dylan16807 5mo agoBut nobody makes announcements and blog posts about running that.
- Ar-Curunir 5mo agoAnd indeed, the bun team has not done that
- Dylan16807 5mo agoDid they not make the announcement? And they definitely promised a blog post even if it's not out yet.
- Ar-Curunir 5mo agoNot on their blog, website, or twitter, so no?
- pgporada 5mo agoThere's several blog posts here. https://www.memorysafety.org/initiative/av1/ https://www.memorysafety.org/initiative/av1/
- Dylan16807 5mo agoAnd the first post is about the team working on the project, with about two and a half sentences on c2rust, and making it very clear they just started. The newer posts go into detail about the rearchitecting that follows.