Hacker News Reader

Comment by pizlonator | Hacker News Reader

> As a C++ developer, I regularly deal with people that think creating a compiled object file and throwing away the source code is acceptable, or decide to hide source code for "security" while distributing object files. This makes my life hell.

I mean yeah that's bad.

> Rust preventing this makes my life so much better.

I'm talking about a different issue, which is: how do you create software that's in the billions of lines of code in scale. That's the scale of desktop OSes. Probably also the scale of some other things too.

At that scale, you can't just give everyone the source and tell them to do a world compile. Stable ABIs fix that. Also, you can't coordinate between all of the people involved other than via stable ABIs. So stable ABIs save both individual build time and reduce cognitive load.

This is true even and especially if everyone has access to everyone else's source code

View on HN

> At that scale, you can't just give everyone the source and tell them to do a world compile. Stable ABIs fix that. Also, you can't coordinate between all of the people involved other than via stable ABIs. So stable ABIs save both individual build time and reduce cognitive load.

Rust supports ABI compatibility if everyone is on the same compiler version.

That means you can have a distributed caching architecture for your billion line monorepo where everyone can compile world at all times because they share artifacts. Google pioneered this for C++ and doesn't need to care about ABI as a result.

What Rust does not support is a team deciding they don't want to upgrade their toolchains and still interoperate with those that do. Or random copy and pasting of `.so` files you don't know the provenance of. Everyone must be in sync.

In my opinion, this is a reasonable constraint. It allows Rust to swap out HashMap implementations. In contrast, C++ map types are terrible for performance because they cannot be updated for stability reasons.

My understanding: Even if everyone uses the same toolchain, but someone changes the code for a module and recompiles, then you're in UB land unless everyone who depends on that recompiles

Am I wrong?

If your key is a hash of the code and its dependencies, for a given toolchain and target, then any change to the code, its dependencies, the toolchain or target will result in a new key unique to that configuration. Though I am not familiar with these distributed caching systems so I could be overlooking something.

That's not the issue I'm worried about

> At that scale, you can't just give everyone the source and tell them to do a world compile.

Firstly, of course you could.

Secondly, you don't even need to, as NixOS shows.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com