Hacker News Reader

> That company would have been better off paying for that.

This is only the case if you assume their primary goal is to get a reimplementation as fast as possible. In my understanding that is not their primary goal. Their primary goal is to not require a Rust compiler in the build process. This means that the approach you suggest doesn't fit requirements.

View on HN

"Their primary goal is to not require a Rust compiler in the build process"

Do you mean their goal is not to require `rustc` in the build process? Because I'm not sure how they're going to compile rust code without a rust compiler.

They wouldn’t need to compile Rust code, because said compiler would be implemented in C++. It would produce a Rust compiler, but would not require one to exist in order to do so.

mrustc for bootstrapping, rust_codegen_gcc (which doesn't seem like it would make stage1 much harder to compile) once the rest of the compiler has been brought up, isn't that the more realistic plan?

That's significantly more complex, and would still involve relying on a pre-built binary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com