101–110 of 433 posts
I am curious, what is the reason behind introducing Rust in Git? I am not familiar with Git development, I am just a user. But my impression is that it is already a complete tool that won't require much new code to be written. Fixes and improvements here and there, sure, but that does not seem like a good reason to start using a new language. In contrast, I understand why adding it to e.g. Linux development makes sen…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's at least one proprietary platform that supports Git built by via a vendor-provided C compiler, but for which no public documentation exists and therefore no LLVM support is possible. Ctrl+F for "NonStop" in https://lwn.net/Articles/998115/
Won't someome think of the financial sector
I am curious, what is the reason behind introducing Rust in Git? I am not familiar with Git development, I am just a user. But my impression is that it is already a complete tool that won't require much new code to be written. Fixes and improvements here and there, sure, but that does not seem like a good reason to start using a new language. In contrast, I understand why adding it to e.g. Linux development makes sen…
I am curious, what is the reason behind introducing Rust in Git? I am not familiar with Git development, I am just a user. But my impression is that it is already a complete tool that won't require much new code to be written. Fixes and improvements here and there, sure, but that does not seem like a good reason to start using a new language. In contrast, I understand why adding it to e.g. Linux development makes sen…
C is unsafe.
I am curious, what is the reason behind introducing Rust in Git? I am not familiar with Git development, I am just a user. But my impression is that it is already a complete tool that won't require much new code to be written. Fixes and improvements here and there, sure, but that does not seem like a good reason to start using a new language. In contrast, I understand why adding it to e.g. Linux development makes sen…
C is unsafe.
How does this help me as a user of git?
Rust is generally a much better tool for building software than C. When your software is built with better tools, you will most likely get better software (at least eventually / long term, sometimes a transition period can be temporarily worse or at least not better).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they can resurrect the C backend for LLVM and run that through their proprietary compilers? It's probably not straightforward but the users of NonStop hardware have a lot of money so I'm sure they could find a way.
Given that the maintainer previously said they had tried to pay to get GCC and LLVM ported multiple times, all of which failed, money doesn’t seem to have helped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust doesn't support as many CPU architectures as C does (SH4 for example, though there's likely many more better examples.) This might make a much more interesting case for GOT than before https://www.gameoftrees.org/
got is a waste of time, imo. they could just port the multiprocess pledge stuff to git (and benefit linux too with namespaces) then all the userfacing changes (i.e. work on git bare instrad of wc) I've been doing for the last decade with a couple lines on my gitconfig file.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
because the rust compiler just doesn't support some platforms (os / architecture combination)? RESF members tend to say it the other way around as in the platform doesn't support rust, but the reality is that it's the compiler that needs to support a platform, not the other way around.
Rust can't support a platform when that platform's vendors just provide a proprietary C compiler and nothing else (no LLVM, no GCC). Perhaps someone could reverse-engineer it, but ultimately a platform with zero support from any FOSS toolchain is unlikely to get Rust support anytime soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There's at least one proprietary platform that supports Git built by via a vendor-provided C compiler, but for which no public documentation exists and therefore no LLVM support is possible. That's fine. The only impact is that they won't be able to use the latest and greatest release of Git. Once those platforms work on their support for Rust they will be able to jump back to the latest and greatest.
It's sad to see people be so nonchalant about potentially killing off smaller platforms like this. As more barriers to entry are added, competition is going to decrease, and the software ecosystem is going to keep getting worse. First you need a lib C, now you need lib C and Rust, ... But no doubt it's a great way for the big companies funding Rust development to undermine smaller players...
Your comment is needlessly dramatic. The only hypothetical impact this has is that whoever uses these platforms won't have upgrades until they do something about it, and the latest and greatest releases will only run if the companies behind these platforms invests in their maintenance.
This is not a good enough reason to prevent the whole world from benefiting from better tooling. This is not a lowest common denominator thing. Those platforms went out of their way to lag in interpretability, and this is the natural consequence of these decisions.