Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2024 15:36:56 -0600 From: "Robert R. Russell" <robert@rrbrussell.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The Case for Rust (in the base system) Message-ID: <20240121153656.050752c4@venus.private.rrbrussell.com> In-Reply-To: <80529ee4-acc3-456c-8aa9-7fd7ebbf0803@m5p.com> References: <CAOtMX2hAUiWdGPtpaCJLPZB%2Bj2yzNw5DSjUmkwTi%2B%2BmyemehCA@mail.gmail.com> <CALH631=v4aWhFNDjZcnmjPnzFyZGhg%2BPuRmShx8TFvF6hPbnJQ@mail.gmail.com> <01519AEB-2725-492F-BC17-A7A40166D437@FreeBSD.org> <80529ee4-acc3-456c-8aa9-7fd7ebbf0803@m5p.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 12:58:25 -0500 George Mitchell <george+freebsd@m5p.com> wrote: > On 1/20/24 12:34, Dimitry Andric wrote: > > [...] > > However, I think this discussion is going in the wrong direction: > > why keep attempting to build all these huge toolchain components in > > our base system at all? [...] > > +1. > I speak from ignorance on the cost/benefit ratio of rust. So perhaps > someone can tell us: what is the size of the rust runtime > library(ies)? Do we continue to want FreeBSD to support small > systems? Should we ponder dividing the base system into the > lightweight part and the heavier weight part? Honestly, I am not > trying to sow dissension, but I do suggest a serious discussion. > -- George Rust defaults to static linking. However, it doesn't blindly link everything in either. Excluding systems with a non volatile storage capacity measured in megabytes Rust will fit in just fine.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20240121153656.050752c4>