winlamb VS gccrs

The first thing that came into my mind was: why not simply go fully native, with the aid of something like WinLamb? Often you can roll your own custom controls quicker than a cross-platform library.

With WinLamb it's trivial: just create a field in the class.

However, if you still want to go Win32, this library is a thin wrapper which may save you a lot of time (and sanity). However, it's C++, not C.

I write C++ and raw Win32 for more than 20 years. I'm the author of this, and I'm rewriting my personal stuff in Rust just for fun.

I wrote a very thin C++11 wrapper for Win32 a few years ago, in case you're interested: WinLamb. It won't do everything, it just covers window creation and messaging, and leaves room to plug any other Win32 stuff on top of it.

Take a look at WinLamb source if you want to see how to build a native GUI.

Given my C++ Win32 background, the very first thing I tried was to write a native Win32 GUI app in Rust. It later became the WinSafe crate, which is strikingly similar to WinLamb C++ lib. The Rust experience was awesome. The correctness of the type system was something I really appreciated, things C++ cannot give you.

I write native Windows stuff sometimes, and I use Windigo, which I wrote based on my WinLamb C++ lib. It's a GUI system over raw Win32, so this has the disadvantage that you'll have to learn some Win32... but it has the advantage that you have the unleashed power of Win32 at your fingertips.

There is a Rust front-end for GCC that is under active development [1]. If the chip vendors are not willing to develop and upstream a LLVM back-end then they can feel free to start contributing to it.

[1] https://rust-gcc.github.io/

That's why gccrs doesn't even consider lifetime checking a part of the language (they plan to use Polonius, too).

There's ongoing work on a Rust front-end for GCC (https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs). Bit barebones right now -- ie, even core doesn't compile -- but there's funding, demand, and regular progress, so it'll only get better from there. Once gccrs can compile core, it should be ready to compile most of Rust, and thus if you've taught the calling conventions for C to GCC, you're golden.

I recommend checking out the GCC Rust frontend project.

That is what theyre refering to, yes. The GitHub is named https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs

- But this misses so much extra context information

3. Macro invocations there are really subtle rules on how you treat macro invocations such as this which is not documented at all https://github.com/Rust-GCC/gccrs/blob/master/gcc/rust/expan...

Some day I personally want to write a blog post about how complicated and under spec'd Rust is, then write one about the stuff i do like it such as iterators being part of libcore so i don't need reactive extensions.

(Speaking of which, Rust-GCC (or gcc-rs or gccrs or whichever other of their names they decide is the primary one) isn't even going to be a complete C++ implementation. Their plan is to implement enough to compile Polonius (the NLL 2.0 borrow checker being developed in Rust for rustc) and then share that since borrow-checking isn't necessary for codegen... only to identify and reject invalid programs... making the C++ portion of it not that different in scope from mrustc.)

That bridge will be crossed with gccrs (compiling Rust with gcc directly, coming next month with GCC 13) and rust_codegen_gcc (rustc frontend, GCC backend, works now but just doesn’t yet have an “easy” setup)