Please beat them to market... Their notion of advertising "curated language features" as a positive instead of "weird frankencompiler that doesn't match any version, work with any 3rd party crates, and has complete vendor-lock" will sell well to people that already use them, unless they aren't an option.
I know, thank you, but I'm asking about the "curated" language features gp is criticizing. AdaCore does make Ada language extensions (who else would push the language forward these days?), but I didn't think they had any for rust, which is why I'm asking.
> GNAT Pro for Rust offers yearly updates that incorporate selected, recent enhancements from the upstream development. We make sure the result is a stable, tested Rust toolchain that’s ready to be used and supported for years to come.
Edit: not so worried about the extensions, more worried they will keep re-releasing 1.68 forever with features added only as people clamor for them. And security fixes wedged into old code. That is in effect forking the language.
The direct competition between Ferrocene and AdaCore should take care of that.
In any case, the compiler wouldn't be certified if they didn't vet the new features. These companies can't control what gets added to the language, and it might take longer than a year to vet future changes.
Their statement is an upfront, no-bull fyi about how reality works. I highly doubt it's a statement of intent to stagnate. It would kind of defeat the purpose of switching away from a stagnated language and ecosystem.
I can imagine no use case where ripping out features from upstream reduces risk vs adding it. I agree it makes no sense to stagnate, but I am familiar with the certified compiler space, and what I have described is exactly what I have witnessed. Compilers that are based on ancient versions of open source compilers, and have code incorporated from various point releases since then to minimize the amount of recertification necessary.
If that's still an option, then they haven't reached the point yet where they have to choose.
They're promising yearly updates. I'm asking what happens when a new upstream feature has already gone uncertified for one full year. Either they blow past the deadline and release nothing for over a year, or they ship what's currently available.
There's no third option. Ferrous doesn't have a time machine, and AdaCore is just explicitly saying that they'll give you what they have at least once a year.
They do say any differences between it and upstream behavior or documentation is a defect in the spec, not upstream. So it isn't authoritative. Unless we all decide it is.
There's an ongoing discussion about potential adoption into upstream, though.
The thing here is: it would be harmful if we, Ferrous Systems, claimed or even be confused with a more general Rust spec. That's a) the privilege of the Rust project and b) problematic if consumers were to understand it that way.
Doesn't Rust have a Reference manual already? A "spec" just wouldn't be very meaningful given the lack of independent implementations. But to the extent that the reference manual doesn't suffice for documenting the language, that's a defect which could and should be fixed.
The manual isn't directly consumable by formal processes. The compiler design doesn't have to be influenced by a specification, but it does have to be described by one.
>> AdaCore does make Ada language extensions (who else would push the language forward these days?), but I didn't think they had any for rust, which is why I'm asking.
Correct, AdaCore / GNAT has extensions that are not part of the Ada standard:
I don't have a close relationship with AdaCore and do not know what they are planning for their Rust toolchain.
That said, I would be surprised if they do not add features to ensure Rust plays nicely with their other products and give their Rust toolchain competitive advantages in the safety critical space. I do not see any documentation or details on their website yet, but it also looks like their Rust toolchain is not released yet.
