Re: the problem of rust :-(

[Taylor R Campbell <campbell+netbsd-tech-pkg%mumble.net@localhost>]

> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2024 07:53:55 -0400
> From: Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost>
> 
> > On Jun 6, 2024, at 7:39 AM, Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote:
> > 
> > Brad Spencer <brad%anduin.eldar.org@localhost> writes:
> > 
> >> It may very well be the case that the 32 bit and 64 bit systems are
> >> entering a phase simular to the 16 bit -> 32 bit transition.
> > 
> > I think "entering a phase" is fair.  The claim made by rust, however, is
> > that the transition is complete.
> 
> It’s absurd on its face.  Is Rust just giving up on the
> embedded / microcontroller space?  Maybe they never cared about it
> in the first place, but if true it seems to greatly reduce their
> viability, in my mind, as a serious language.
> 
> Then again, I always thought Rust was a solution in search of a problem.

I think there is a [citation needed] for the claim gdt said Rust is
making, and we should wait for that citation before piling on.


The impression I have gotten is that Rust folks consider it silly, and
not well-supported, to run the Rust _toolchain_ on 32-bit platforms,
but _cross-compiling_ for 32-bit platforms is still supported.  E.g.:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123549#issuecomment-2041150568

I've been working on getting cross-builds into better shape in NetBSD
(https://www.NetBSD.org/gallery/presentations/riastradh/bsdcan2024/pkgcross.pdf
gives an overview of the current state), and getting Rust packages
cross-built is on my agenda but it's a lot of waiting for builds so I
haven't committed anything there yet.