I don't think it's "just for the sake of it". I think they believe that the Rust code will be safer.

If that's the case, they should stop using git and Linux right now, because it's everything written in C. Having 0.1% of the code in a safe language will not change anything, it's only a bad security blanket.

	▲	aw1621107 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Having 0.1% of the code in a safe language will not change anything, it's only a bad security blanket. Just because something does provide an immediate perfect solution does not mean it isn't not worth investigating and/or pursuing. Also consider that bugs tend to be more prevalent in new code (e.g., [0]) as a result, you are likely to see more of a benefit from writing new code in a memory-safe language than raw line count proportions would indicate. [0]: https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s...
	▲	nvme0n1p1 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You don't believe in slowly and iteratively improving a codebase over time? Should git stick with its weird mishmash of C and perl and shell scripts forever, for tradition's sake, performance and maintainability be damned?
	▲	baq 23 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Rewriting it all in rust with bug for bug compatibility and byte identical outputs won’t cost more than $100k in tokens, but I don’t think this is an answer you’re looking for