> Needless to say, lots of time and money were wasted.
it might be needless, but for those of us not in the know, could you elaborate on that please? what ended up as waste? why? altogether was it worth it?
it might be needless, but for those of us not in the know, could you elaborate on that please? what ended up as waste? why? altogether was it worth it?
Now I understand why this is politically difficult, but it still resulted in suboptimal technical decisions, and ill will against Rust, which is unfortunate.
The problem is more that rewriting code that has a long history and is in wide-spread use tends to lose that history and any real world experience embedded in the code.
But if otherwise they would have written something in C++ then that point is moot.
sure CTO says something, but what exactly happened? do we know? you wrote that no new C/C++ projects were started. that to me sounds perfectly reasonable phase-out.