On Sun, Oct 06, 2024 at 08:08:53AM -0700, Per Bothner wrote: > On 10/5/24 11:14 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > If we are seriously considering rewriting Texinfo in a different > > language, why should we limit ourselves to C++? Nowadays there are > > better, safer languages out there. > > Which ones? > > If we restrict ourselves to languages with fast execution, modest > run-time-size, ahead-of-time compilation, with an extensive utility library, > and a reasonable number of people who know the language, the only ones > I can think of are C++ and Rust. However, I have not been paying as much > attention > to programming languages as I used to. > > I'm impressed by Rust, and it would probably be a good implementation > language for Texinfo. > However, it is not as mature as C++, has a steeper learning curve, and I > think fewer > "GNU people" know it well. (I have only written one fairly small program in > Rust, > to wrap the Tauri/Wry framework for DomTerm.)
Now imagine that half of DomTerm gets rewritten in Rust and then you are scratching your head looking at a bunch of Rust code that you barely understand when trying to fix problems in DomTerm. That's the situation you are promoting for Texinfo.
