Re:Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have...
by steveklabnik on Sunday February 17, 2019 @09:10AM
(#19184516)
Stylo was attempted in C++ twice. Both times it was too buggy and had to be thrown out.
The third time, they used Rust. And it worked.
Re:Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have...
by j16sdiz on Sunday February 17, 2019 @10:27AM
(#19184887)
Most of recent Firefox performance come from parelelization in servo.
Mozilla research said rush enabled them doing safe multuthreading.
Re:Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have...
by AsyncAwait on Sunday February 17, 2019 @08:08AM
(#19184274)
Well, it got faster because of Servo, which is written in Rust, so not completely unrelated, but yes, it did not get fast because of Rust the language.
Re:Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have...
by rat9988 on Sunday February 17, 2019 @06:07AM
(#19183847)
I wonder why people make such bold wrong claims.
Re:Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have...
by plg on Sunday February 17, 2019 @06:37AM
(#19183945)
I think in this case itβs probably because the person in question is simply mistaken. The other possibility is that they are some kind of Rust evangelist and they are actively trying to deceive people. I doubt it. Could we please approach each other with the benefit of the doubt? Could we please gently, constructively correct errors? I see no need to be so aggressive, especially in our current social/political climate.
Re:Google backtracks on Chrome modifications that would have...
by rat9988 on Sunday February 17, 2019 @01:20PM
(#19185885)
What current social/political climate? Moreover, the problem is that he claimed without research. And this is what bothers me. How can people be certain of something they have never seen confirmed anywhere.
Those are unrelated.