Peter Maydell writes: > On 10 March 2016 at 05:29, Lluís Vilanova <vilan...@ac.upc.edu> wrote: >> Richard Henderson writes: >>> Alternately... can we broach the subject of C++? Honestly, it >>> seems we work too hard sometimes to re-implement templates and >>> classes in C. >> >> Whooo, I'd really *love* to switch to C++ just for templates and >> classes... But last time this was discussed, the idea wasn't met >> with much joy :)
> I would be more interested in a proposal to move parts of QEMU > to Rust, or just about anything else except C++... QEMU is pretty low-level, so I'm not sure other languages will fit the bill as good, and for the parts relevant to QEMU you have just as much control of low-level details as with C (having a very close syntax also helps transition). But I'm curious, what'd be the advantage of rust? Cross-language bindings are usually expensive, and require some duplication for defining structures across them (maybe it's not the case for rust). Lluis
