On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Nicholas Nethercote <n.netherc...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Bobby Holley <bobbyhol...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> I've been wondering about this. There's a big difference between (a) > >> permitting Rust components (while still allowing fallback C++ > >> equivalents) and (b) mandating Rust components. > > > > I don't know why we would allow there to be a long gap between (a) and > (b). > > Maintaining/supporting two sets of the same code is costly. So if we get > the > > rust code working and shipping on all platforms, I can't think of a > reason > > why we wouldn't move as quickly as possible to requiring it. > > The "if" in your second sentence is exactly what I'm worried about. My > gut tells me that step (b) is a *lot* harder than step (a). I could be > too pessimistic, but Android I believe there's a plan there, but don't have a good window into how long it will take. > and the tier 3 platforms I'm pretty sure we wouldn't block on those, precisely because they're tier-3. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
