191–200 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I share the spirit. OSS is all about forking. My company works with a very very niche TypeScript fork as well. Everyone should be free to work and contribute in the way he prefers for whatever reasons.
Forking a language that aims to be the long term stable systems language for a very large part of the IT landscape isn't a good thing.
Rust is experiencing growing pains because they're still figuring out a governance structure that works for everyone. They want to simultaneously keep the current structure of bottom up development where each team (compiler, lang, crates.io, cargo) has the autonomy to make decisions for themselves, but the project as a whole can speak can come to a consensus and speak with a single voice. That's what this RFC tries to capture (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfc-leadership-council/blob/mai...). But the project isn't there yet, and is making these frustrating missteps in the interim. The lack of transparency into these missteps manifests as "bureaucracy" to outsiders like us.
If Crab lang actually attracted people doing the real work of development, they would have the exact same "bureaucracy" as teams tried to figure out how to build consensus and speak with one voice. The fact that they don't have bureaucracy is a direct consequence of them not doing any work right now. None of the crab lang people are involved in actually building Rust, as far as I can tell, so they might not be aware of this.
Lastly, I want to note that the top comment in this thread is blaming the Foundation, which is simply bizarre. The Foundation very explicitly tries to stay hands off on technical decisions and does not interfere in how the teams organise themselves. You may disagree with that decision, but it's an inaccurate characterisation to blame them.
Interesting, how many negative comments this gets. People seem to love monoculture run by committees. This is exactly what OSS is all about. Take a code base and develop it into different directions. Both code and organization. And "natural selection" will have some forks die and others strife.
Stable project structure is a requirement to survive as an enterprise language, which everyone tries to make it into. It can live with the forks, but only as a toy language.
I would argue the requirement is that each compiler is a stable project. But one language can have multiple compilers that aren't 100% compatible and implement slightly different subsets of the language (as long as there's a common subset libraries can choose to stick to)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the majority of Amos (fasterthanlime), Raph Levien, Ashley Williams, Carol Nichols and Steve Klabnik throw their weight behind any fork of Rust, then that’s where I’m putting my energy too. I believe they’re hugely responsible for most of the adoption of Rust and have no doubt they’d see continued success anywhere they choose.
> If the majority of Amos (fasterthanlime), Raph Levien, Ashley Williams, Carol Nichols and Steve Klabnik throw their weight behind any fork of Rust But they quite dislike this fork, don’t they?
I disagree with the general sentiment in this thread that this is a useless immature move. Sure, Crab will almost certainly not replace Rust, but that is not the goal. The ultimate objective is to influence Rust stakeholders' decisions. This is similar to a strike where ultimately your goal is not to destroy the company or to quit and leave, but to achieve better conditions. In both cases it sometimes works and somet…
It's the threat of people abandoning the current leadership. It has to be credible to make a change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A wiser and less ego-centric Stallman would have stepped back decades ago. I don't agree. For all his limits, Stallman maintained an ideological purity that is required to firmly signpost one end of the Overton window. Opensource licenses and projects can mix and match rights and regulations, but you will always have an unwatered GPL option, there to remind people of what the original ideal looked like. Compare the…
I don't think ideological purity is the problem here.
The very existence of the FSF's offerings is necessary to understand what other positions compromise to obtain other benefits.
I've invested in a fair bit of time in learning Rust fairly recently -- asking naively, but is this sort of thing something which could realistically compromise the future of the language?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forking a language that aims to be the long term stable systems language for a very large part of the IT landscape isn't a good thing.
Why not? Competition if anything breeds more innovation. I wish someone came up, e.g., with an Elm fork.
All this drama and the fork likely seem extremely important to the parties involved but everyone else just wishes they would get along.
As a working dev I want one Rust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just look at LibreOffice. This is a fork of OpenOffice and OpenOffice is dead (at least to me)
OpenOffice isn't dead, they made a release a few months ago this year. https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/announcing-apache-openoff... Last commit made 3 days ago, actively maintained. https://github.com/apache/openoffice