I don’t think “why not” is a great response in general - especially when the same developer also invested time in Swift that was ultimately wasted.
Comment on Ladybird Browser adopts Rust, with help from AI
eager_eagle@lemmy.world 20 hours agoWhy it wouldn’t be? Surely not having idiomatic rust doesn’t eliminate other benefits of switching to the language, like better tooling, memory safety, and perhaps more people willing to contribute. Over time the codebase can be improved but the main goal in the transition seems to not break existing functionality, which they seem to have accomplished for LibJS.
XLE@piefed.social 18 hours ago
eager_eagle@lemmy.world 17 hours ago
It’s not a why not response. I’m asking back why do you think it wouldn’t be worth it even as a literal translation from C++, because in my view, that would be a first step towards a proper Rust port, and it still brings benefits to the table.
CameronDev@programming.dev 14 hours ago
I haven’t looked at the code, but the mem safety may be out if the translation just slapped unsafe and transmute everywhere.
And “working code” is often very hard to replace, it can be hard to justify code changes when the original “works just the same”. So, I would expect the weird ported code to live on unless there is a major effort to rewrite it.
eager_eagle@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
There’s no reason to believe it’s mostly unsafe. And even if that’s the case, changing from unsafe rust to safe is less of a leap than cpp to rust.
CameronDev@programming.dev 13 hours ago
Having done some C to rust auto-translation some time ago, it definitely was wildly unsafe. Maybe it’s better now, but there is no reason to assume it’s mostly safe now either. Even recently I did some regular vibe coding to test it out, and it generated some very questionable code.
Fixing unsafe can be a mixed bag, some will be easy, some will require much deeper changes. And without looking at the code, impossible to say which it will be.