I don't agree with two of the four given reasons for the rewrite.
> Modern codebase: Easier to maintain and evolve compared to 30-year-old C code.
It's not a modern codebase, but a NEW codebase, so ofc it's easier to maintain and evolve. How many 30-year old Rust projects are there to actually validate this claim?
> Younger contributor base: Young developers are opting for modern language like Rust instead of C. Rust's safety features also make it easier for new developers to contribute more confidently.
I like that a lot of young programmers work on open source projects, but the old-is-bad bias hurts software projects because so many hard earned lessons get lost and relearned over and over again.
Besides that, why call this a "takeover"? I like Rust, but this whole endeavour screems immature. Sudo is a critical component in millions of systems, please treat it appropriately.
I don't agree with two of the four given reasons for the rewrite.
> Modern codebase: Easier to maintain and evolve compared to 30-year-old C code.
It's not a modern codebase, but a NEW codebase, so ofc it's easier to maintain and evolve. How many 30-year old Rust projects are there to actually validate this claim?
> Younger contributor base: Young developers are opting for modern language like Rust instead of C. Rust's safety features also make it easier for new developers to contribute more confidently.
I like that a lot of young programmers work on open source projects, but the old-is-bad bias hurts software projects because so many hard earned lessons get lost and relearned over and over again.
Besides that, why call this a "takeover"? I like Rust, but this whole endeavour screems immature. Sudo is a critical component in millions of systems, please treat it appropriately.