because the rust compiler just doesn't support some platforms (os / architecture combination)?

RESF members tend to say it the other way around as in the platform doesn't support rust, but the reality is that it's the compiler that needs to support a platform, not the other way around.

▲

JoshTriplett 3 days ago | parent [-]

Rust can't support a platform when that platform's vendors just provide a proprietary C compiler and nothing else (no LLVM, no GCC). Perhaps someone could reverse-engineer it, but ultimately a platform with zero support from any FOSS toolchain is unlikely to get Rust support anytime soon.

▲

jen20 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Furthermore, how could it without the donation of hardware, licenses and so forth?! This is a problem entirely of the proprietary platforms making, and it should be their customers problem for having made a poor decision.

	▲	kmeisthax 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		HPE's customers are big-pocketed enough that they absolutely could manage a Rust port themselves, or pay HPE however much money they need to get them to do it if they're going to play games with ABI documentation. NonStop isn't some kind of weird hobbyist or retrocomputing platform. Actually, I'm surprised HPE doesn't already ship a Rust fork, given how NonStop is supposed to be a "reliable" OS...

▲

kazinator 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Reverse that: "C can't support a platform when that platform's vendors just provide a proprietary Rust compiler and nothing else".

▲

Yoric 3 days ago | parent [-]

Seems to me that that is equally true and doesn't remove any validity from the argument.

▲

kazinator 3 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	JoshTriplett 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's unclear what point you're trying to make here. Proprietary platforms with proprietary-only toolchains are bad, for a wide variety of reasons. Open toolchains are a good thing, for many reasons, including that they can support many different programming languages.