Re: Removal of firefox115 and firefox128

[Havard Eidnes <he%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

>> It is relatively hard to fix the build of www/firefox-115 with the
>> latest rust toolchain.
>> However 128 should be built without problem.
>
> As a C programmer this doesn't appear to me as an incentive to
> learn Rust.
>
> So, never versions of the rust compiler cannot compile older code?
>
> Or, what do I miss?

I think that's basically it.  My perspective is this (not really
being a "rust insider"):

The rust language is not "set in stone" by any stretch of the
imagination, and is thus still evolving (though some parts are
declared to be "more stable than others").  And it is my impression
that making non-backward-compatible changes is allowed, if it
contributes to the overall goal of safety etc.

E.g. for the rust compiler itself, where major portions are, as in
any other self-respecting compiler, "written in itself": the only
backwards-compatibility provided is that only the "previous" major
version of the rust compiler is guaranteed to be able to build the
current version, and they release a new major version of the rust
compiler at approximately monthly intervals.

This, at least partially, is responsible for the rather high
freqency of changes in the rust language ecosystem.

I realize that this is quite different from dealing with an age-old
language (C) which has been through international standardization in
multiple rounds, and which through its actions expresses a vastly
different mindset about backward compatibility.  It's ... "different"...

Regards,

- Håvard