Re: Integrating "safe" languages into OpenBSD? (2017)
&gt; Yes, now I am implying something: you won&#x27;t bother to rewrite the utilities.<p>&gt; So we cannot replace any base utility, unless the toolchain to build it is in the base.  Adding such a toolchain would take make build time from 40 minutes to hours.  I don&#x27;t see how that would happen.<p>So, to summarize: &quot;We&#x27;re not going to include the capability to write core utils in Rust, and also, no one is bothering to do it.&quot;<p>Its rather startling to me how tail-wagging-the-dog, or maybe chicken-and-egg, this situation is. Did anyone stop to consider that the reason why some of these utilities aren&#x27;t being rewritten is <i>because</i> the unix old guard doesn&#x27;t want to support it in the toolchain? If this guy is the wall that you&#x27;ll eventually have to crash your car into, I&#x27;m not going to get behind the wheel in the first place. Why waste my time?<p>Look; the compile limitations are real. I&#x27;m not saying that it <i>should</i> be supported. But, attitudes like the one are not productive. What is it about operating system devs and these aggressive, mean, anti-social, self-important personalities? A response worded like this should not be tolerated by the community. It would have been just as easy and clear to say &quot;We don&#x27;t have toolchain support for Rust, and we&#x27;re really not interested in supporting it due to its compile time and architecture support issues. &lt;One sentence explaining compile time issues&gt;. &lt;One sentence explaining architecture support issues&gt;. We can revisit this discussion in the future if&#x2F;when these improve.&quot;