[pjmlp]

Sometimes it is better to have rotten wood to build something than nothing at all.

If we want to encourage Rust adoption, it is by having a middle path, not via Rust Advocacy Strike Force.

That only shuts the audience off, specially when Rust has a glass ceiling of depending on C++ infrastructure for its reference compilers.

[tialaramex]

I believe conventionally they're called the Rust Evangelism Strike Force.

And it's true that the rotten wood was better than nothing. Nobody is suggesting that NT or Linux should somehow have been developed in Rust in the 1990s. But likewise we shouldn't resist renewal in newer, better materials.

That applies to compiler internals too. Plenty of trouble down there for C++, it's just that C++ programmers can more often be sent away by assuring them that what they did was UB and so LLVM is entitled to miscompile it whereas the Rust people keep arriving with the receipts, in the form of LLVM IR that is lowered to machine code which makes no sense

e.g. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/45725

[pjmlp]

Yet if I want to contribute to Rust backend, or its upcoming GCC implementation, write C++ I must.

Same applies to the runtimes of the languages I use at work, and GPGPU related tooling when not using shaders.

Maybe then do a Go/zig/D, focus on cranelift and fully bootstrap Rust, before trying to rewrite the world.

[tialaramex]

You certainly can go work on Cranelift or similar projects which have a coherent IR as a central goal rather than eh, it's probably good enough to compile C++.