@5C5C5C I found back the study I was talking about

https://www.theregister.com/2024/09/25/google_rust_safe_code_android/

> The good news for organizations with a lot of unsafe legacy code is that rewriting old code in new languages probably isn't necessary.

> That's not to say old bugs miraculously become unexploitable. Rather, the overall density of vulnerabilities diminishes – a statistical win but not a guarantee of safety.

@onlinepersona @snaggen Indirectly it can. Recent studies showed that old code is very unlikely to have security issue. This means that if all new code can be in Rust, while keeping the old code in C++ will be much more secure that rewrite all C++ (because by definition rewrite have more bugs since its new code). So interoperability is both safer and cheaper.

@voklen What makes it complicated if when you have a problem with 5 sub-issues, and multiples possible solutions but none of them solves all 5 sub-issues. Even worse, some being more efficicient to solve 1 or 2 sub issue while making the 4th or 5th much worth. If your idea can take care of such complicated and heated debates that would be amazing.

@voklen @secana This feels like an interesting idea. I tought a lot (without success) on how to make progress on complicated technical subjet where a lot of emotions and widely different incompatible designs may coexist. One such example of a complex topic is adding (or not) named arguments to Rust. Maybe your tool cool help to get some sense of all the arguments and even beeing able to take glimpse of the big picture!

@h3ndrik @Blamemeta I wonder if having fakebut interesting comments would help (ie. written by alt-account of the author) . I noticed that I have significantly higher chances to participate in the conversation if there are already 5-6 comments than 0-2, especially if they open the dialog.