Live data from Hacker News

Rust Foundation: Hello, World

foundation.rust-lang.org

111–120 of 284 posts

Re: Rust Foundation: Hello, World

#111
post #46
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust is already in Debian's repository. The trademarks haven't been an issue at all.

It seems no one had to rebrand Rust yet, but can you guarantee this will always be the case? Firefox was fine in debian until 2006.

The issue with Firefox was that Mozilla didn't want Debian's modified version of Firefox to be called Firefox.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_software_rebranded_by_...

Re: Rust Foundation: Hello, World

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

don't get me wrong, I love rust and find it a great language for doing systems level stuff but it would be my last choice for a crudy type web application. Those are intrinsically IO bound. Sure, you might find a noticeable improvement if you're using something really slow like rails without any caching but there are plenty of garbage collected rapid development languages that will be fast enough that the visible per…

> Those are intrinsically IO bound. Rust has a great async story compared to other languages, which benefits IO-bound workloads even more so than CPU-busy ones.

Not compared to Elixir. It's hard to beat lightweight processes for concurrency. I've used Rust, but I'm doing my webapp in Elixir.

Re: Rust Foundation: Hello, World

#114
post #55

Hey folks! Normally, I am all over these threads answering questions, but I am not on the foundation board and did none of the real work to get this going! The foundation members are unlikely to comment on Hacker News, so if you have big questions you want answered, contacting them via the address on the site is the right way. Personally, I am very excited that this is happening, and really looking forward to the fut…

I would like to raise awareness to a tiny detail: > February 9th, at 4pm CT. When using local time zones we should strive to always also add the equivalent GMT time to a global audience - even if this audience will not participate in the meeting, it is good to have an idea of when that is actually happening without needing to go through a timezone converter.

I usually try to avoid getting into TZ pedantry, but since you brought it up, UTC is preferred and is not interchangeable with GMT.

Re: Rust Foundation: Hello, World

#115
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that most people will know the offset of their own timezone from GMT/UTC. If you specify time in another timezone, they now need to know two offsets - theirs AND yours. Chances are they won't know yours and they have to look it up.

This is a very "HN bubble" perspective. No, most people do not know their time zone's offset from GMT and go through a timezone converter. When they have to set a timezone, they click a spot on a map or look up, "What timezone is Pittsburgh?" For most, it's faster to search "12:00 GMT to EST" or whatever than it is to remember it and do the arithmetic.

Assuming most people do not know is also a "bubble" perspective. We don't know what "most" people know about their time zones. Most countries in Asia have only one timezone.

source: https://www.timetemperature.com/asia/asia_time_zones.shtml

It is easier for them to relate to GMT in my opinion.

Re: Rust Foundation: Hello, World

#116
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that most people will know the offset of their own timezone from GMT/UTC. If you specify time in another timezone, they now need to know two offsets - theirs AND yours. Chances are they won't know yours and they have to look it up.

This is a very "HN bubble" perspective. No, most people do not know their time zone's offset from GMT and go through a timezone converter. When they have to set a timezone, they click a spot on a map or look up, "What timezone is Pittsburgh?" For most, it's faster to search "12:00 GMT to EST" or whatever than it is to remember it and do the arithmetic.

>This is a very "HN bubble" perspective. No, most people do not know their time zone's offset from GMT

Well, almost everybody who's done server work knows their timezone offset from UTC, though, which is basically GMT.

Re: Rust Foundation: Hello, World

#117
I found parts of that announcement very difficult to follow.

Can anyone tell me what the following means?

« For too long, open source as both an industry and a community has done a poor audit of its expenses. Notably, ignoring the price of what I’d controversially argue is the core value proposition of open source software: the freedom to collaborate. »

Re: Rust Foundation: Hello, World

#118
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a very "HN bubble" perspective. No, most people do not know their time zone's offset from GMT and go through a timezone converter. When they have to set a timezone, they click a spot on a map or look up, "What timezone is Pittsburgh?" For most, it's faster to search "12:00 GMT to EST" or whatever than it is to remember it and do the arithmetic.

It might be different elsewhere, but most people in Europe really do know their GMT offset.

Most people in the US know their offsets from the other three US time zones as well.

Re: Rust Foundation: Hello, World

#119
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I understand. Those are both just time zones, right? So knowing what time it happens elsewhere requires a conversion no matter what time zone you gave originally, doesn't it?

I think the idea is that many people know the offset of their timezone from GMT/UTC, so they wouldn't have to look it up, but nobody can be expected to know their offset from any arbitrary other timezone.

Offsets from GMT/UTC are annoying when you have to deal with DST though, as it can be confusing to remember which offset applies at any given point in time.

Re: Rust Foundation: Hello, World

#120
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you comment a bit more on how Rust let you model the domain better than F# did?

The thing with F# is that (idiomatic) models/functions rely on type inference, and eventually is hard to see what is the flow without look at the IDE. Rust making type annotations explicit with minimal inference is much clearer. Also, the fact I can do mutation + imperative code locally yet give a functional feel make some hacks around this on F# unnecessary. But probably the biggest thing is that Rust make idiomatic…

Admittedly I work for a very opinionated team - we even have our own style guidelines (https://github.com/G-Research/fsharp-formatting-conventions) which are often in direct contradiction to Microsoft's, and my team strongly skews towards writing explicit type annotations on all function signatures. I can certainly see how there would be a problem if one defaulted to omitting type annotations.
Post reply on HN