I refuse to let Amazon define Rust • Hacker News Board

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#101

Post by flohofwoe » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #11

Hey, at least they didn't pick "move fast and break things" as a core principle. They're doing better than C/C++.

Rust is just getting started to see the same problems as C in the 80's (becoming successful enough that multiple competing compiler implementations emerged, which in turn required standardization). I think that the same will happen with Rust (but those can be good things, if it works more like the C committee and less like the C++ committee): first multiple competing implementations (like gccrs) will emerge, and once the situation gets too messy, a proper specification followed by an ISO standard, and a committee to carefully refine and maintain the standard.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#102

Post by Scarbutt » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:23 PM UTC

It's funny because I don't think this guy has ever written a public library in Rust. Can he even code at all?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#103

Post by edderly » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #44

poppejans wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not let them have the foundation chair. I think Ashley would've made a great chairwoman, but she just might not have wanted to become chairwoman of the foundation.

> she just might not have wanted to become chairwoman of the foundation. I can assure you she would have been happy to continue to be the executive director. I talked about this briefly in the thread, but wasn't quite clear enough, so might as well also elaborate here, since it was brought up. I am not worried that she will not be the next ED. I mean, I would have preferred it, but it's not my decision to make. The s…

I don't want Amazon to define Rust but I want my pal to define it doesn't exactly sound like a solid argument. Is there any more meat on the bone here?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#104

Post by whoknew1122 » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:28 PM UTC

oxymoron wrote: post #66

mjw1007 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The announcement blog post at https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/09/08/ru... says the initial version was "quite closely modeled on AWS tenets".

Tenets as used internally at AWS are a set of principles that each team decides for themselves, as guides in the face of ambiguity. There's no overarching set of tenets (that I'm aware of), so this is probably just referring to the idea of having a guiding set of principles to resolve tradeoffs.

This. Each org, team, and project has their own set of tenets. There are a few common sense tenets that are overarching (Security is priority 0), but there is no one set of 'AWS tenets.'

Tenets are used as quick statements to validate decisions. And the tenants are always up for debate and revision.

Using 'AWS tenets' isn't some nefarious way to control Rust. It's borrowing a useful (IMO) management/decision making structure to help guide decisions. Using 'AWS tenants' doesn't give AWS undue influence anymore than using the concept of Andon cords gives Toyota undue influence.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#105

Post by myrrlyn » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:29 PM UTC

kybernetyk wrote: post #97

I'm OK with Amazon taking over. Maybe they can make the language really successful and a proper replacement for C++. The current team failed at that. Whenever I speak to a C++ dev about why they won't switch to Rust they tell me the language is just too bloated and horrible and they prefer their version of hell to the "rustician" variant.

?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#106

Post by xpe » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

kybernetyk wrote: post #97

I'm OK with Amazon taking over. Maybe they can make the language really successful and a proper replacement for C++. The current team failed at that. Whenever I speak to a C++ dev about why they won't switch to Rust they tell me the language is just too bloated and horrible and they prefer their version of hell to the "rustician" variant.

The primary goal of Rust has never been to 'Take over' C++ or to convince as many C++ orgs and developers to switch.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#107

Post by wibagusto » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

sergiomattei wrote: post #93

marricks wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steve Klabnik is well known in HN and in the Rust community, he mentioned it privately and doesn't seem to want to air dirty laundry more than he has too. You can either see his history and trust that he wants to get as much done with as little said as possible or say you trust Amazon. Either is understandable but I think it's reasonable to be a known member of a community and speak up just enough to hopefully get th…

More than he has to? Dude already named names. Cat's out of the bag, might as well go all the way.

Why I don’t use Twitter. Rust will be old-hat once the it’s replacement comes out in 2025.

Edit: why I will not tweet about why I will not use rust.

Edit: why I do not understand why the Rust community is overzealous.

Edit: overzealous nerds are very annoying.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#108

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:31 PM UTC

codesections wrote: post #75

The platinum members of the Rust Foundation are Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Mozilla, and Huawei. I'd pretty much prefer that none of those companies have any role in defining Rust – but, instead, they seem to be about the only ones who do.

[deleted]

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#109

Post by noisy_boy » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:32 PM UTC

I think that folks that are asking Steve for more details are not being unreasonable. It came as somewhat surprising to me (and probably to most folks who are not involved with the core/admin side of Rust).

However, I also think that his tweet might be more in the pre-emptive vein of "cease and desist" leveraging his personal standing in the community instead of actually getting into a war with Amazon's side. The objective seems to be basically to let them know that if they continue with their current behavior, it will be met with resistance. He is taking a risk though because we don't know enough to have an informed view of the actions that might have triggered this.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#110

Post by thesuperbigfrog » Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 5:33 PM UTC

turbinerneiter wrote: post #74

bythckr wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the issue with Mozilla being the patron of Rust? They are managing the Firefox project well. Would it be better if Rust was a part of the Apache foundation?

Other problem is being the _sole_ Patreon. Many people think that the best thing for projects like this is to have as many entities involved as possible. Anything that is controlled by single entity is bound to forget the needs of others. For example: neither Mozilla nor Amazon might have Embedded Systems as a core interest, so they will forget about it and might accidently make decisions that ate bad for this use ca…

>> Anything that is controlled by single entity is bound to forget the needs of others.

That is perhaps the biggest concern.

When a large tech company controls governance, their needs and priorities come first.

We have seen similar concerns with other programming languages in the past: Java (Sun / Oracle), Go (Google), Swift (Apple).

Exclusive or dominant control is not necessarily bad (depends on how transparently the governance process runs and who is involved), but it can severely limit the programming language community's effect and leave the needs of some groups unfulfilled.