> If you had you wouldn’t conflate memory safety with a lack of memory manipulation.
We are all aware of unsafe. We are also aware that all those assurances of safety go away in those circumstances.
This is cherry-picking. I didn't say all research papers, just most. This is a very specific circumstance. Under specific circumstances these ideas will work.
This example is one where the replaced code wasn't that old, on a very specific set of hardware and in a rather specific case. Its basically the ideal set of conditions for a rewrite. But there are plenty of cases where attempts to swap in Rust aren't being done in ideal conditions like this. I doubt switching to Rust is never a good idea. I also doubt switching to Rust is always a good idea.
PS The problem is partly the way you write. I criticize ideas. You criticize me. That's a big part of why you get pushback.
> android runs on a very specific set of hardware
How could anyone possibly think this? It runs on ARMv7, ARM64, x86 and x86-64. What else do you want it to run on? It runs on literally billions of devices, made by hundreds of manufacturers - phones, TVs, Chromebooks, cars. All of these couldn’t be more different.
Windows/MacOS are examples of supporting specific hardware. Android works on incredibly diverse hardware. All of which will be powered by Rust now.
> wasn’t that old
Binder is about 20 years old. Linux is 30 years old, by the way. It was developed across 3 different corporations. There’s a reason the code was incredibly difficult to make changes to.
Could we stick to facts, please? This stuff isn’t hard to google.
> I also doubt switching to Rust is always a good idea.
No one said this, by the way. This is a strawman you’ve constructed.
PS the problem is that none of what you write makes sense. No one is giving me any pushback apart from you. And the only way you’re able to pushback is by completely ignoring facts.