ML-KEM? How did you get from ChaCha20 to ML-KEM? Is it just that you skimmed the original comment and are focused on a different topic altogether? I was trying to understand what constitutes "Soup-to-nuts" here because I think Thomas is putting the distinction in the wrong place.
Still, now we're here:
It's foolish to wait for a "perfect language" but it's not foolish to look for a way to improve the status quo, and I don't buy that just because it so happens it "never panned out" previously that won't ever change.
Which actually gets me back to that DIV instruction. What ensured Go couldn't have this problem? Just luck? The IRA's warning to Thatcher seems very applicable.
Thomas and I are both talking about the Go cryptographic library overall, not about the ChaCha20 implementation in particular. Anyway, I don’t find arguing semantics around the “soup-to-nuts” expression particularly productive.
We avoided the DIV by deliberately not using a modulus operation and doing Barrett reduction instead.
Still, now we're here:
It's foolish to wait for a "perfect language" but it's not foolish to look for a way to improve the status quo, and I don't buy that just because it so happens it "never panned out" previously that won't ever change.
Which actually gets me back to that DIV instruction. What ensured Go couldn't have this problem? Just luck? The IRA's warning to Thatcher seems very applicable.