robinm

@onlinepersona Given that this subject was already brought up, and regular people from the project said that their is interest for removing the dependency to github (but not leave it, Microsoft is one of the top contributor), I assume that some people would be willing to help the integration a working prototype.

In case you need it:
https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/

@onlinepersona I'm quite certain that if you have a working solution, visible somewhere on internet, you can ping them on zulip/discourse to ask someone to pull your code.

@onlinepersona @Miaou for github they said for years that they would welcome patches but so far nobody came, nor payed someone to do it for them.

@FizzyOrange @cows_are_underrated wasn't this 2018, aka 8 years ago?

@TehPers @FizzyOrange "old laptop" RAM usage scale heavily with core count. Modern CPU have much more core, and thus RAM is much more useful for compiling nowadays

@sugar_in_your_tea @ex_06

- && and || instead of and and or
- :: instead of the simpler .

Just those two changes would help significatly reduce the awkwarness. Even turbofish would be slightly less noizy.

@ex_06 @taladar Personnally it's not that I like the syntax, it's that I love the semantic.

@cryptocode It was not in direct response to what you wrote, I read the whole motivation post. Something strange on internet, I know ;) It was quite interesting btw.

@cryptocode I'm quite surprised about the claim of slow compile for Rust code **specifically** written to be fast to compile (like using dyn instead of impl). I would love to read more apout what makes Rust intrically slow to compile, even if you are ready to write code in non-idiomatic way.

@5C5C5C I found back the study I was talking about

https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/25/google/_rust/_safe/_code/_android/

> The good news for organizations with a lot of unsafe legacy code is that rewriting old code in new languages probably isn't necessary.

> That's not to say old bugs miraculously become unexploitable. Rather, the overall density of vulnerabilities diminishes – a statistical win but not a guarantee of safety.

@onlinepersona @snaggen Indirectly it can. Recent studies showed that old code is very unlikely to have security issue. This means that if all new code can be in Rust, while keeping the old code in C++ will be much more secure that rewrite all C++ (because by definition rewrite have more bugs since its new code). So interoperability is both safer and cheaper.