[protanopia]

Why was BoringSSL chosen as the backend? According to Google,

> Although BoringSSL is an open source project, it is not intended for general use, as OpenSSL is. We don't recommend that third parties depend upon it. Doing so is likely to be frustrating because there are no guarantees of API or ABI stability.

https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl/

[parhamn]

Did you read the line underneath?

> Programs ship their own copies of BoringSSL when they use it and we update everything as needed when deciding to make API changes. This allows us to mostly avoid compromises in the name of compatibility. It works for us, but it may not work for you.

Sounds like its just a strong warning that they'll change their APIs when they want (in the name of security). Not that it isn't production ready.

[woadwarrior01]

Which is why, they're vendoring a copy of BoringSSL. The readme on their git repo[1] clearly states this.

[1]: https://github.com/apple/swift-crypto

[protanopia]

That allows them to avoid the problem, but why introduce the problem in the first place? Why not use something that is intended to be used as a crypto library?