Is there no performance implications for using the bindings vs using rust code (assuming everything else is equal)??
I assume if the crypto libraries are going to be maintained, keeping the bindings up to date allows us to focus on more important libraries, rather then maintaining a parallel rust implementation. On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Sean McArthur <[email protected]>wrote: > Considering the effort to break up libextra into multiple crates in > #8784[1], could rust-crypto[2] be moved back into rust as libcrypto? > > Some comments on the issue deviated about whether crypto should written > *in* Rust, or just be bindings. As a user, I don't care how they are > implemented, as long as the exposed API is Rust-like. However, I can't > imagine scouring the internet for a crypto library maintained by someone, > instead of using what comes with Rust (which gives me a sense of assurance > that it does the crypto correctly). > > > > [1]: https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/8784 > [2]: https://github.com/DaGenix/rust-crypto > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
