|
|
|
|
|
|
by dralley
1097 days ago
|
|
|
What bearing does any of this have on the previous thread of discussion? Why do you think a 12 year old needs to publish their "hello world" programs because of Crater? The purpose of Crater is uncovering subtle compiler regressions. If "hello world" is ever broken then it would likely be discovered by the standard test suite or generally long before the Crater run. This isn't a matter of "allowing" anything. It's just a statement that yes a Crater run does test all meaningful publicly available code, where "meaningful" at the very least means code which is consumed via crates.io. Sure, there is very likely public code that exists elsewhere which Crater cannot find, and that's OK. The point is that a Crater run coming back clean means something, because a very very wide swath of code was tested. |
|
|
My response was all of 5 lines, saying that if dthul's comment were true, then it implies that Rust has a rather small code base.
And indeed, Crater does not test all publicly available Rust code. ("Not all code is on crates.io! There is a lot of code in repos on GitHub and elsewhere", and only for "Linux builds on x86_64", not Windows, says https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/tests/crater.html).
Rust is much bigger than dthul's comment implies.
You may well be correct when adding the qualifier "meaningful", but that's a different thread of discussion.
> Why do you think a 12 year old needs to publish their "hello world" programs because of Crater?
I mentioned that because you changed the thread of discussion to discuss centralized vs. decentralized code distribution.
> because a very very wide swath of code was tested.
And C++ language developers also analyze a 'wide swath of code' - millions of lines or more - for changes.