On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Bobby Holley <bobbyhol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In other words, I think we should encourage people to consider Rust for > new code, but also make sure that we have a thoughtful and informed > discussion about whether a use-case makes sense and how best to support it. > Definitely! I deliberately described my "Rust should be considered / preferred / mandated" goal as "provocative" :) We should think big, and then put engineering effort in where it makes sense and will have strong benefits. > Right now we have a module that's intended to govern decisions on these > issues [1]. However, the peer list for that module seems oriented around > C++ and build system expertise, and is sparse on people who have been > deeply involved in the Rust integration efforts over the past year. > > So we could expand that group with expertise to tackle Rust integration > issues. Or it could charter a committee of such experts to do so. Or some > combination. Either way, I think we want some amount of steering here, and > I can think of a handful of names whose input is likely required to get it > right. > That module's name is "C++/Rust usage, tools, and style", and its description is "Aspects of C++ use such as language feature usage, standard library versions/usage, compiler/toolchain versions, formatting and naming style, and aspects of Rust use as needs arise" To me that feels orthogonal to the notion of encouraging the adoption of more Rust components in Firefox. That kind of encouragement feels more project-wide, and so IMO would fall under the "mozilla-toplevel" component. IIRC Brendan resigned ownership of that module a while back but he's still listed as the owner at https://wiki.mozilla.org/Modules/All#mozilla-toplevel. So that leaves things in an uncertain state. If I were the owner of that module I would consider implementing a policy something like the following: "When a person writes a new compiled-code component, or majorly rewrites an existing one, they should strongly consider writing it in Rust instead of C or C++. Such a decision will depend on the nature of the component. Components that are relatively standalone and have simple interfaces to other components are good candidates to be written in Rust, as are components such as parsers that process untrusted input." It could do with some tweaking and feedback, but in principle I don't see why such a policy couldn't be implemented right now. I don't know where this policy would be written down, though! Nick _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
