Sealed Rust Update • Hacker News Board

Re: Sealed Rust Update

#31

Post by brmgb » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 6:22 PM UTC

Argorak wrote: post #28

brmgb wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ada get plenty of love where it matters : actual industrial usage in critical systems. It is not clear to me how the internet hype surrounding Rust which seems mostly driven by people coming from dynamic languages and former web developers actually translate to use where it counts.

As someone who lead a lot of the talks hinted at in the blog post: it translates to where it counts. I also see your devaluing of effective use of marketing and some peoples background on the internet. Memes like "InternetOfShit" wouldn't have happened if hardware builders would appreciate the skill sets of web engineers (e.g. running applications that are constantly under automatic attack). Ada is still on the table…

> I also see your devaluing of effective use of marketing and some peoples background on the internet.

I fear you are bringing your own prejudice to my post.

I merely pointed that the most vocal supporters of Rust are not people doing safety critical software which is supposedly Rust forte. The whole "InternetOfShit" thing is purely on your own.

Re: Sealed Rust Update

#32

Post by _bxg1 » Fri, Feb 14, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

Argorak wrote: post #26

_bxg1 wrote: post #10

This is an important effort, but it's weird (disconcerting?) to me that something so fundamental as a formal language specification (for a language that advertises safety as a key feature) is being bootstrapped not by the core team, but by a third party. It doesn't feel like that's something you only need "collaboration with" the core team about. I can't think of anything that's more "core". The rest of it makes sens…

> This is an important effort, but it's weird (disconcerting?) to me that something so fundamental as a formal language specification (for a language that advertises safety as a key feature) is being bootstrapped not by the core team, but by a third party. It doesn't feel like that's something you only need "collaboration with" the core team about. I can't think of anything that's more "core". This may be a misunders…

The Web isn't especially "safety-critical", and it rapidly evolves to meet stakeholder needs, but it still has a formal specification at the top that serves as the entry point for new features. This single source of truth is the touchstone for all involved parties, is where things get proposed and debated and decided, and then that filters down to browser vendors who implement the spec. This allows vendors to ensure cross-compatibility and allows the languages to be more than just a compiler or interpreter.

Having a formal spec isn't specific to the niche industries talked about in Sealed Rust; it's simply good practice for any open language project.

Re: Sealed Rust Update

#33

Post by Argorak » Sun, Feb 16, 2020, 4:23 PM UTC

_bxg1 wrote: post #32

Argorak wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is an important effort, but it's weird (disconcerting?) to me that something so fundamental as a formal language specification (for a language that advertises safety as a key feature) is being bootstrapped not by the core team, but by a third party. It doesn't feel like that's something you only need "collaboration with" the core team about. I can't think of anything that's more "core". This may be a misunders…

The Web isn't especially "safety-critical", and it rapidly evolves to meet stakeholder needs, but it still has a formal specification at the top that serves as the entry point for new features. This single source of truth is the touchstone for all involved parties, is where things get proposed and debated and decided, and then that filters down to browser vendors who implement the spec. This allows vendors to ensure…

The web is also well-known for implementation before specification and often specifying vendor-specific extensions because of widespread adoption. A specification is a touchstone, yes, but also a substantial effort. The Rust language is also built with vastly less manpower than the web specification! It's okay that you consider a specification good practice, but there's a ton of open source project that are not specified with the rigor you ask for, which kind of takes away the point...

Those industries you mention are not niche.

Re: Sealed Rust Update

#34

Post by ajxs » Mon, Feb 17, 2020, 3:53 AM UTC

Argorak wrote: post #28

brmgb wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ada get plenty of love where it matters : actual industrial usage in critical systems. It is not clear to me how the internet hype surrounding Rust which seems mostly driven by people coming from dynamic languages and former web developers actually translate to use where it counts.

As someone who lead a lot of the talks hinted at in the blog post: it translates to where it counts. I also see your devaluing of effective use of marketing and some peoples background on the internet. Memes like "InternetOfShit" wouldn't have happened if hardware builders would appreciate the skill sets of web engineers (e.g. running applications that are constantly under automatic attack). Ada is still on the table…

You seem to be implying that the horrible state of IoT is not mostly the fault of the web integration layer.