What does "Rust-based" even mean? Inspired by Rust? Does it transpile to Rust or something? Very confusing phrasing to me...
I'm not saying they're like that today, but that's why some people get all on-edge when Microsoft does things like this.
Microsoft has become better in the last years, but they still do bad things. So why should people trust the wholeheartly?
Remember Microsoft tried to kill the internet and could have succeeded if it wasn't for the efforts of many, the US DOJ included, to prevent them from obtaining total control through their operating system monopoly.
You can't go through that and not be skeptical.
But if it simply means they are making a new language using lessons from Rust - then why not.
Though I didn't quite get what problem they found with using the idea of scope based lifetimes per object, that they needed to redefine it in context of groups.
I guess shipping Windows API cargo crates makes too much sense. Does anyone have any context for gaps in Rust they are addressing?
In TFA it mentions that ownership will be based on groups of objects, but I’m not sure I understand what this solves that a struct doesn’t.
I haven't finished digging through the OP, but it looks like a bunch of Microsoft employees (already aware of Rust's safety benefits) have started recognizing the commitment to FFI as well. My last project had a feature that depended on a bind to win32, which turned out to be the most time consuming aspect - as it demanded a bunch of tooling that was otherwise unnecessary (valgrind, etc). If they were to take stewardship of that interface, lots of unsafe{} would disappear overnight.