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 and the tier 3 platforms worry me. Nick _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
