[anarki8]

> The problem is that rust is being shoved in pointless places with a rewrite-everything-in-rust mentality.

> There's lunatics ...

I think the problem is people calling developers "lunatics" and telling them which languages they must use and which software they must not rewrite.

Battle tested is not bulletproof: https://cybersecuritynews.com/sudo-linux-vulnerability/

Applying strict compile time rules makes software better. And with time it will also become battle tested.

[epolanski]

My point had nothing to do with languages.

My point is against rewrites of critical software for the point of rewriting it *insert my favorite language*. Zig is also a safer language than C, so are many other alternatives, yet the Zig community is not obsessed in rewriting old software but writing new one. And the Zig compiler has excellent C interop (in fact it can compile C/C++), yet the community is more focused in writing new software.

There are many factors that make software reliable, it's not just a matter of pretty types and memory safety, there's factors like platform/language stability, skill and expertise of the authors, development speed and feedback.

[anarki8]

> My point is against rewrites of critical software for the point of rewriting it insert my favorite language.

In this specific case we are talking about the maintainer adding a new language into the existing codebase.

I think refactoring parts of the software in the new language is what you call "rewrite" here, correct?

So what improvements does it bring? You actually answered it yourself:

> it's not just a matter of pretty types and memory safety

So indeed, stricter/stronger type system and additional automatic compile time and runtime checks are a major improvement.

> platform

As already mentioned in this thread: neither of the platforms lacking Rust were supported officially anyways.

> language stability

Rust is extremely stable and backwards compatible - 1.0 code still compiles without any issues on 1.90 and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

> skill and expertise of the authors

The same developers continuing to contribute and newcoming developers have more checks in place to prevent bugs.

> development speed

I guess you imply here that developing in C++ is faster. It's in fact not if your aim is to produce correct software. There are so many more things to keep in mind and take care of with C++, you have fewer automatic checks being done by the compiler and the type system.

About Zig: it's a nice language and much more comfortable to use than C/C++ IMO, but compared to Rust it lacks in strictness and safety, so added benefits are smaller and fewer if you put away subjective preferences.

[eviks]

> My point is against rewrites of critical software for the point of rewriting it

Because you're replacing a real point with a made up one, the reason for rewriting is to get the critical benefits for critical software, which battle testing has shown can't be had in the current language, not "my favorite"

> Zig community is not obsessed

They don't even have a 1.0 language? You're also ignoring the critical difference in the level of safety