Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#321

Post by imheresamir »

CraftingLinks wrote: post #185
steveklabnik wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 see now what this is truly about.

Cashing in social capital in retaliation for their partner getting fired?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#322

Post by ilaksh »

type0 wrote: post #291
ilaksh wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that Amazon getting too much control is a real problem. But also suspect that deep down the true concern Klabnik has is that Steve Klabnik thinks Rust is about him, or at least he is the one that is supposed to write articles about what Rust is about. Not someone from Amazon or anywhere else.

> But also suspect that deep down the true concern Klabnik has is that Steve Klabnik thinks Rust is about him, or... Oh, don't post this kind of personal attacks.

It's not a personal attack. It's just a theory. There was nothing substantive in the article.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#324

Post by zelly »

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++.

C++ is pretty much the opposite of moving fast and breaking things. It takes like 10+ years, lots of academic papers and debates, lots of peer review, to get a feature into the ISO standard. The reason it's so bloated is just because of age.

Rust is just a single implementation that's CI'ed with nightly releases.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#325

Post by zelly »

cratermoon wrote: post #5

Ohhhhhhh, 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.

Nah Rust evangelism is pretty organic. I remember it having a cult 6 years ago too, before any of these companies got involved.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#326

Post by HowTheStoryEnds »

whoknew1122 wrote: post #192
fsociety wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree a lot. I don’t think using AWS Tenets was done nefariously.. but it has an important implication on the Rust community as a whole. Engineers are really relying on the Rust Foundation to do right by them, and by adopting Amazon or other big tech company principles it’s spitting in the face of engineers who don’t trust them and adding the potential for bias in decision making of the foundation. I’m hopeful t…

Again, Rust hasn't adopted Amazon's principals. It has adopted a mechanism used by Amazon by which it can define its own principles. The tenets of the team I work on are stuff like 'treat every customer like your best friend on their worst day'. And 'learn something new every day'. They are tenets of a team in AWS, which makes them (to some extent) 'AWS tenets'. Are they somehow nefarious because there are people who…

No, but you do have to trust said tenets and their application.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#327

Post by stjohnswarts »

ilaksh wrote: post #127
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…

I assume that Amazon getting too much control is a real problem. But also suspect that deep down the true concern Klabnik has is that Steve Klabnik thinks Rust is about him, or at least he is the one that is supposed to write articles about what Rust is about. Not someone from Amazon or anywhere else.

He's pointing out big changes coming to control of the Rust foundation and positing that Rust foundation being controlled by one large single corporate entity probably is not a good thing. Nothing in there seemed to me like he wanted to be the one in control.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#328

Post by stjohnswarts »

LanceH wrote: post #48
Ansil849 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread? When is there not? Tweets are a horrible medium for contextual information.

Incredibly vague rants are designed to get people to take sides, presumably against Amazon, because they're big and therefor always doing evil. This reads like drama for the sake of drama. Edit: I should have said that posting this to HN is just posting drama. Using twitter to vent is fine, just not newsworthy in any way.

Uh it is newsworthy. This isn't Kim K tweeting about a particularly painful hangnail. It has some serious ramifications for the future of Rust if Amazon is becoming too powerful in the community.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#329

Post by pjmlp »

throwaway17_17 wrote: post #298
pjmlp wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When ISO C++98 came out there was no Google, or better said, it was just been founded.

You are correct. I may have read more into GP’s post than they intended. I assumed given the issues present in the tread and the original tweets, I assumed they were referring to the Committee submission document from 2020 [1] and the ‘uproar’ from non-FAANG developers. 1 - http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p213...

Well, given that Google has reduced their contributions to ISO C++ and clang/LLVM, it appears the ISO is working as intended, where everyone has one vote, despite wanting more.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#330

Post by stjohnswarts »

sk2020 wrote: post #220
mjw1007 wrote: post #25

The Rust Foundation has indeed been disappointingly opaque. Their website contains only anodyne director bios and board meeting minutes. The minutes go up to May's meeting, with most of the content omitted under a "Private Session" heading. AIUI the main need for a foundation was so they could own the Rust domain names and trademarks. Eight months later, I've seen no announcement on whether any progress has been made…

I don’t actually see how Amazon stewardship is a bad thing. Corporate custody has been the case for several useful programming languages, with Java, .NET, and Go being obvious and popular examples. Replacing a core team of advocacy-oriented developers with production-oriented developers might give the project a positive new direction too. After all, a popular, design-by-committee compiled language with RAII memory ma…

It's working out great for Qt and Java...
Post reply on HN