Video where this was introduced, which has more details: <a href="https://vimeo.com/376180843" rel="nofollow">https://vimeo.com/376180843</a><p>Slides: <a href="https://www.slideshare.net/KTNUK/digital-security-by-design-security-and-legacy-at-microsoft-matthew-parkinson-microsoft" rel="nofollow">https://www.slideshare.net/KTNUK/digital-security-by-design-...</a>
I'm curious to see what Microsoft does.<p>The big breakthrough with Rust was ownership, and Microsoft seems to agree on that. Rust has a lot of other baggage that could be dispensed with. Of course, Microsoft has their own baggage.
This slideshow is pretty interesting (in particular slide 14):<p><a href="https://www.slideshare.net/KTNUK/digital-security-by-design-security-and-legacy-at-microsoft-matthew-parkinson-microsoft" rel="nofollow">https://www.slideshare.net/KTNUK/digital-security-by-design-...</a><p>Talks about sandboxing C/C++ libraries that interact with Rust. Kinda make a safe unsafe sandbox Rust interface ("less unsafe?") if I understand it correctly (I likely don't).<p>The actual linked article is all over the place, I cannot make heads or tails of it and seems to be conflating multiple security issues/mitigations together into a mish mash.
I'm surprised Microsoft didn't "invent" their own version of Go yet. Actually I'd use it in a heartbeat over Google's if they add generics to it. Just call it "Micro".
I <i>really</i> like the idea of implementing mutability control at the level of a collective as opposed to a single object. A great many transactions are multi-object.<p>Love the idea that a Netscape-legacy language has traction there. I hope they don’t return to their pre-Nadella practices.
Found the article to be somewhat vague and found this slideshare presentation which was...a little less vauge.<p><a href="https://www.slideshare.net/KTNUK/digital-security-by-design-security-and-legacy-at-microsoft-matthew-parkinson-microsoft" rel="nofollow">https://www.slideshare.net/KTNUK/digital-security-by-design-...</a><p>It <i>seems</i> like they want to do something like Rust, but with a new focus on regionalized memory management.
Seems like Microsoft really needs Rust. They've completely gutted their prized aggressive prerelease testing, and the quality of the software they expose users to has declined dramatically.
I think it's gonna be something good from the creators of Typescript, the most flexible and object oriented language. Microsoft created too many languages compared to any other company and they really one step ahead in this field.
For the hating Microsoft crowd, here are the projects where they are also using Rust,<p><a href="https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/?s=rust" rel="nofollow">https://msrc-blog.microsoft.com/?s=rust</a><p>And the talks done about the internal adoption,<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCB19DRw_60" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCB19DRw_60</a><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o01QmYVluSw" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o01QmYVluSw</a><p>And the author from C++/WinRT is now working on Rust/WinRT.<p><a href="https://kennykerr.ca/2019/11/05/rust/" rel="nofollow">https://kennykerr.ca/2019/11/05/rust/</a><p>So lets wait a bit before going to the castle with the pitchforks and torches.
EEE strikes again? Why not just use and contribute into the Rust itself? Why creating one more copy? They could have extended C2Rust[1][2] to support C++[3] and C# to ease their migration instead.<p>[1] <a href="https://c2rust.com" rel="nofollow">https://c2rust.com</a><p>[2] <a href="https://github.com/immunant/c2rust" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/immunant/c2rust</a><p>[3] <a href="https://github.com/immunant/c2rust/issues/162" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/immunant/c2rust/issues/162</a>
Oh no, I bet it's gonna be a C# flavored Rust. None of Rust's terse syntax and functional influence. It's going to be full-blown Java-style OOP with plenty of Wnd handles to be thrown around. Yikes, I certainly hope I am not right.