Hey, at least they didn't pick "move fast and break things" as a core principle. They're doing better than C/C++.
I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
11–20 of 363 posts
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#12Ohhhhhhh, this explains a lot of the "Rust is the next great thing" I keep seeing around. Amazon has taken a page out of Microsoft's 90s playbook of embracing stuff and astroturfing their extensions until they claim it as their own and extinguish competition. I hope the Rust team finds a way out, but I suspect now that if Amazon has their hooks in it then they'll just fork it.
Unsurprisingly there are a lot of ex-softies at amazon.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#13Why was it a problem that Mozilla was heavily involved in Rust? As an outsider, I felt that Mozilla lend credibility to Rusts efforts, and Rust gave Mozilla relevance.
There was a lot of good and a lot of bad! It was absolutely necessary to get Rust going. But even as the project started, senior leadership at Mozilla wanted to make sure that it was a community thing, not a Mozilla specific thing.
Even though Mozilla was pretty hands-off from Rust, management wise, one thing being in control of something like this just has a lot of effects. I'm not really prepared to go into a full retro of Mozilla's involvement with Rust here, I just wanted to note that there was also a lot of good there.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#14I don't really understand the issue with aws's involvement with rust? As far as I understand, they want a language that lets them.
1. write software thats high performance 2. minimize defects 3. can be used for a variety of sitauations
There are all things I want from rust as does the community as a whole. Seems like the incentives are lined up in a way thats beneficial for everyone.
maybe someone else can educate me on something I don't know here?
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#15Regarding Rust, Amazon has done way more good than harm. They helped in solidifying Rust as a professional language with good wages.
Developers come and go, it is unreasonable to strike the big company if the future of the language is dependent on the fact that a couple of "core" devs work at it and someone is writing articles about this and that that involves Rust.
Other languages have been through worse and survived, why not Rust?
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#16Why was it a problem that Mozilla was heavily involved in Rust? As an outsider, I felt that Mozilla lend credibility to Rusts efforts, and Rust gave Mozilla relevance.
Having a single company mostly control an Open Source project means that if the company decides to drop the project, stop funding it, and/or move devs from working on it to work on something else, progress halts and it's difficult to get things back. That's why so many projects try to have Foundation that controls resources and can be financially backed, etc. There's also the "if the company goes evil the project may…
The solution isn't "Well - let's stop that company from using our product" it's to ride that company for a while and try to remain semi-independent until the spotlight shown on your product by that company attracts other devs. Basically the "Oh hey - Amazon decided to use Rust? Maybe it isn't just a passing fad..." adoption takes time and Rust is still very young.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#17I don't really understand the issue with aws's involvement with rust? As far as I understand, they want a language that lets them. 1. write software thats high performance 2. minimize defects 3. can be used for a variety of sitauations There are all things I want from rust as does the community as a whole. Seems like the incentives are lined up in a way thats beneficial for everyone. maybe someone else can educate me…
Are we reading the same thread? I don't think their involvement is at issue.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#18Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on programming language foundations for them to have the power to do this. I feared this would happen months ago when Facebook joined the board and even talked to steve about my concerns [0] [1]. Unfortunately it has come true with no surprise. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125591 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2698928…
> Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on foundations for them to do this.
for them to do what?
> I feared this would happen months ago
feared what would happen?
> Unfortunately it has come true with no surprise.
what has come true?
In this post and the first thread you linked, you're doing the same thing – raising concerns without saying what those concerns are. They might be valid concerns, but if you only allude to them without ever stating them, nobody will know!
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#19Still have trouble parsing this. Some person not with Amazon anymore wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles.
And Amazon as heavy users of Rust have people on the committees? What's the process to getting them those seats? Voting?
> they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.
How?
OpenSource politics is sometimes the worst.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#20"I want Amazon to pay me to make their language but not to make any decisions about it."
Steve's forgotten who pays the bills. I hope he gets canned from the Rust team and learns to be humble once again.