> My point is against rewrites of critical software for the point of rewriting it
insert my favorite language.
In this specific case we are talking about the maintainer adding a new language into the existing codebase.
I think refactoring parts of the software in the new language is what you call "rewrite" here, correct?
So what improvements does it bring? You actually answered it yourself:
> it's not just a matter of pretty types and memory safety
So indeed, stricter/stronger type system and additional automatic compile time and runtime checks are a major improvement.
> platform
As already mentioned in this thread: neither of the platforms lacking Rust were supported officially anyways.
> language stability
Rust is extremely stable and backwards compatible - 1.0 code still compiles without any issues on 1.90 and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
> skill and expertise of the authors
The same developers continuing to contribute and newcoming developers have more checks in place to prevent bugs.
> development speed
I guess you imply here that developing in C++ is faster. It's in fact not if your aim is to produce correct software. There are so many more things to keep in mind and take care of with C++, you have fewer automatic checks being done by the compiler and the type system.
About Zig: it's a nice language and much more comfortable to use than C/C++ IMO, but compared to Rust it lacks in strictness and safety, so added benefits are smaller and fewer if you put away subjective preferences.
In this specific case we are talking about the maintainer adding a new language into the existing codebase.
I think refactoring parts of the software in the new language is what you call "rewrite" here, correct?
So what improvements does it bring? You actually answered it yourself:
> it's not just a matter of pretty types and memory safety
So indeed, stricter/stronger type system and additional automatic compile time and runtime checks are a major improvement.
> platform
As already mentioned in this thread: neither of the platforms lacking Rust were supported officially anyways.
> language stability
Rust is extremely stable and backwards compatible - 1.0 code still compiles without any issues on 1.90 and will continue to do so for the forseeable future.
> skill and expertise of the authors
The same developers continuing to contribute and newcoming developers have more checks in place to prevent bugs.
> development speed
I guess you imply here that developing in C++ is faster. It's in fact not if your aim is to produce correct software. There are so many more things to keep in mind and take care of with C++, you have fewer automatic checks being done by the compiler and the type system.
About Zig: it's a nice language and much more comfortable to use than C/C++ IMO, but compared to Rust it lacks in strictness and safety, so added benefits are smaller and fewer if you put away subjective preferences.