5 ms·

Those interested in this may find the following articles of interest: Microsoft goals [edit: err, Microsoft hiring manager vision-casting goal ] to convert 1 b

by gregw2 23d ago

Those interested in this may find the following articles of interest: Microsoft goals [edit: err, Microsoft hiring manager vision-casting goal ] to convert 1 billion lines of code to rust by 2030 via automated tooling enabling "1 engineer, 1 month, 1 million lines of code": https://thenewstack.io/microsofts-bold-goal-replace-1b-lines-of-c-c-with-rust/ https://thenewstack.io/microsofts-bold-goal-replace-1b-lines... DARPA work towards automating converting C code to Rust using a mix of 6 different teams using different approaches: https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/translating-all-c-to-rust https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/translating-all-c-to... Feb 2026 Progress report: https://github.com/DARPA-TRACTOR-Program/Reports/blob/main/First_TRACTOR_Evaluation_Report.pdf https://github.com/DARPA-TRACTOR-Program/Reports/blob/main/F...

burakemir 23d ago
It would be possible for me to give a more nuanced take, but the upshot is: none of that shit is going to work 100%. One may get local maxima like an unsafe bonanza, or something that introduces a custom runtime memory management discipline at the cost of performance etc. Fully equivalent C++ to Rust in full generality is mainly wishful thinking. Of course that does not mean one should not try it. See also my other comment.
- gregw2 23d ago
  Oh, I 100% agree. The question is how much you can reduce the effort of the port/migration, and in particular the validation effort. I've worked on projects where the core bits of code were "90%" converted by some automated tool, and in my view the overall benefit to the project timeline was probably only 20-30% because of the Amdahl's-law-type overheads of validation and bits of code not supported by the automation/conversion process. Nice, but no silver bullet. Non-idiomatic porting also isn't super-helpful if the resulting code isn't maintainable.
- mkehrt 23d ago
  As I pointed out in a sibling comment, the plan isn't for it to work. This is a job posting for a researcher at MSR to investigate what it might look like someday.
jodrellblank 23d ago
That is not "Microsoft goals", that is "one employee's LinkedIn comment of his personal goal".
- mkehrt 23d ago
  It's less one guy's plan and more one Microsoft Research team's research goal to investigate technologies that might enable that in a few years. So probably more institutional support than just some guy, but less actually planning on succeeding in the full ambitious goal.
  - afdbcreid 23d ago
    No, after this made some waves he or some other senior (I don't remember exactly) reported that this is not an official plan.
    - mkehrt 22d ago
      Sorry, by "official support" I mean that there is support within MSR to investigate these tools as a research project, no that there is a plan to actually do the conversion.
- andsoitis 22d ago
  what's your point?
  - jodrellblank 22d ago
    Why are you saying that you love Hitler[1]? (that isn't what you said? what's your point?) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
eterm 23d ago
There have also been repeated statements from NSA & CISA that they recommend all development should be done in memory safe languages. It's abundantly clear that there is a strong headwind towards memory safety, whether that's Rust or GC'd languages.
- estebank 23d ago
  A headwind makes it harder to advance in the direction you're going. I think you might have meant to say "there is a strong tailwind towards memory safety".
  - eterm 23d ago
    You're right, I better do a 360 on my comment ;)
    - foolswisdom 23d ago
      A 180 might be more useful :)
      - andsoitis 22d ago
        oh boy, maybe geometry intuitions and spatial reasoning are what's really needed.
        tigerlily 22d ago
        Or maybe a nice sabbatical aboard a sailboat expedition.
        imp0cat 22d ago
        Or maybe not, because that's where confusing 180 and 360 degrees or headwind and tailwing will REALLY bite you.
blub 23d ago
These kinds of sanitized corporate, feel-good articles are anything but interesting. A disgruntled former Azure employee posting what a clusterfuck their SW, including their Rust effort is? That’s both rare and interesting.
mokre 23d ago
What with this llms not so good in rust mantra? Something changed? In my experience they are pretty good, but haters gonna hate.
- Tanjreeve 23d ago
  Most people it's good at syntax and the error messages give you a good loop. But the domains rust actually makes sense in tend to be quite punishing on slop both culturally and technically.
  - dgroshev 23d ago
    To add to this, I find that the delta between the amount of code and pain you get with good and bad abstractions is substantially higher in rust than other languages. It's alright to muddle through in Python or TS, but with Rust bad abstractions are punishing. LLMs are pretty bad at picking abstractions.
    - eru 22d ago
      It's good that it's punishing when the abstraction are bad: then you notice. With Python or TS, as you say, you get less feedback.
      - dgroshev 22d ago
        That's true, although inconvenient for production code that needs to be delivered yesterday. Sadly, agents don't mind generating gigatons of code instead of refactoring the abstractions.
    - deleted 22d ago
      [deleted]
- JoshTriplett 22d ago
  LLMs are unusually good at Rust; it's an optimization target. And the constraints provided by "successfully compile with the Rust compiler" make it work well for agent iteration. (I have mixed feelings about that, but empirically it holds true.)
amir734jj 22d ago
There is no way they can re-write everything in Rust by 2030. No way. Even new projects are modern C++ at MSFT. Some teams are creating their Rust/C++ binding but that's a very small fraction.
deleted 22d ago
[deleted]
germandiago 22d ago
Just in case slop is not strong enough.

by gregw2 23d ago

burakemir 23d ago

It would be possible for me to give a more nuanced take, but the upshot is: none of that shit is going to work 100%. One may get local maxima like an unsafe bonanza, or something that introduces a custom runtime memory management discipline at the cost of performance etc. Fully equivalent C++ to Rust in full generality is mainly wishful thinking. Of course that does not mean one should not try it. See also my other comment.

gregw2 23d ago
Oh, I 100% agree. The question is how much you can reduce the effort of the port/migration, and in particular the validation effort. I've worked on projects where the core bits of code were "90%" converted by some automated tool, and in my view the overall benefit to the project timeline was probably only 20-30% because of the Amdahl's-law-type overheads of validation and bits of code not supported by the automation/conversion process. Nice, but no silver bullet. Non-idiomatic porting also isn't super-helpful if the resulting code isn't maintainable.
mkehrt 23d ago
As I pointed out in a sibling comment, the plan isn't for it to work. This is a job posting for a researcher at MSR to investigate what it might look like someday.

jodrellblank 23d ago

That is not "Microsoft goals", that is "one employee's LinkedIn comment of his personal goal".

mkehrt 23d ago
It's less one guy's plan and more one Microsoft Research team's research goal to investigate technologies that might enable that in a few years. So probably more institutional support than just some guy, but less actually planning on succeeding in the full ambitious goal.
- afdbcreid 23d ago
  No, after this made some waves he or some other senior (I don't remember exactly) reported that this is not an official plan.
  - mkehrt 22d ago
    Sorry, by "official support" I mean that there is support within MSR to investigate these tools as a research project, no that there is a plan to actually do the conversion.
andsoitis 22d ago
what's your point?
- jodrellblank 22d ago
  Why are you saying that you love Hitler[1]? (that isn't what you said? what's your point?) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

eterm 23d ago

There have also been repeated statements from NSA & CISA that they recommend all development should be done in memory safe languages. It's abundantly clear that there is a strong headwind towards memory safety, whether that's Rust or GC'd languages.

estebank 23d ago
A headwind makes it harder to advance in the direction you're going. I think you might have meant to say "there is a strong tailwind towards memory safety".
- eterm 23d ago
  You're right, I better do a 360 on my comment ;)
  - foolswisdom 23d ago
    A 180 might be more useful :)
    - andsoitis 22d ago
      oh boy, maybe geometry intuitions and spatial reasoning are what's really needed.
      - tigerlily 22d ago
        Or maybe a nice sabbatical aboard a sailboat expedition.
        imp0cat 22d ago
        Or maybe not, because that's where confusing 180 and 360 degrees or headwind and tailwing will REALLY bite you.

blub 23d ago

These kinds of sanitized corporate, feel-good articles are anything but interesting. A disgruntled former Azure employee posting what a clusterfuck their SW, including their Rust effort is? That’s both rare and interesting.

mokre 23d ago

What with this llms not so good in rust mantra? Something changed? In my experience they are pretty good, but haters gonna hate.

Tanjreeve 23d ago
Most people it's good at syntax and the error messages give you a good loop. But the domains rust actually makes sense in tend to be quite punishing on slop both culturally and technically.
- dgroshev 23d ago
  To add to this, I find that the delta between the amount of code and pain you get with good and bad abstractions is substantially higher in rust than other languages. It's alright to muddle through in Python or TS, but with Rust bad abstractions are punishing. LLMs are pretty bad at picking abstractions.
  - eru 22d ago
    It's good that it's punishing when the abstraction are bad: then you notice. With Python or TS, as you say, you get less feedback.
    - dgroshev 22d ago
      That's true, although inconvenient for production code that needs to be delivered yesterday. Sadly, agents don't mind generating gigatons of code instead of refactoring the abstractions.
  - deleted 22d ago
    [deleted]
JoshTriplett 22d ago
LLMs are unusually good at Rust; it's an optimization target. And the constraints provided by "successfully compile with the Rust compiler" make it work well for agent iteration. (I have mixed feelings about that, but empirically it holds true.)

amir734jj 22d ago

There is no way they can re-write everything in Rust by 2030. No way. Even new projects are modern C++ at MSFT. Some teams are creating their Rust/C++ binding but that's a very small fraction.

deleted 22d ago

[deleted]

germandiago 22d ago

Just in case slop is not strong enough.