Skip to content

docs(gc): add oscars parity matrix for the current boa_gc API surface#60

Closed
Flamki wants to merge 1 commit intoboa-dev:mainfrom
Flamki:docs/boa-gc-api-parity
Closed

docs(gc): add oscars parity matrix for the current boa_gc API surface#60
Flamki wants to merge 1 commit intoboa-dev:mainfrom
Flamki:docs/boa-gc-api-parity

Conversation

@Flamki
Copy link
Contributor

@Flamki Flamki commented Mar 23, 2026

This PR adds a focused parity matrix for the current Boa-facing boa_gc API surface and maps it against the current oscars mark-sweep implementation.

What this adds

  • docs/boa_gc_api_parity.md
    • maps the engine-facing API documented in docs/boa_gc_api_surface.md
      to current Oscars support status
    • classifies each item as:
      • implemented
      • partial
      • missing
      • semantically different
    • includes code references for the current Oscars implementation
    • calls out the main blockers for staged Boa integration
  • README updates for discoverability

Why

We already have:

  • the Boa-side API surface document from #38
  • the integration tracker in #26
  • the staged integration direction in #28

What was still missing was a concrete parity view from "what Boa uses today" to "what Oscars currently supports".
That gap matters for:

  • API audit work in #26
  • deciding what can be adopted incrementally in Boa
  • keeping GC redesign work grounded in actual integration requirements

Scope

  • docs only
  • no runtime or API behavior changes

Validation

  • cargo fmt --all -- --check
  • cargo test --workspace

@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
# Boa GC API Parity Matrix
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hmmmm, this looks pretty good overall, but can you open this up as an issue rather than a notes file in this instance.

I think we'll get a lot more mileage out of it, where we can create sub issues with specific tasks.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yes, opening an issue makes sense, I was also thinking about doing something similar to track API parity. This way we can keep track of the progress more easily

@Flamki
Copy link
Contributor Author

Flamki commented Mar 26, 2026

Opened #63 to track the parity gaps in issue form as requested. Closing this PR in favor of the issue tracker entry so follow-up work can branch into smaller task-specific issues/PRs.

@Flamki Flamki closed this Mar 26, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants