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

61–70 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#61

Post by freditup »

steveklabnik wrote: post #38
xiphias2 wrote: post #34

,,I've tried to get this message across in private. They just don't care.'' ,,they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.'' Maybe Steve (and other Rust team members) should adopt openness and stop making deals in private. That's not how open communities are built.

"making deals" is the wrong characterization. "Bring my concerns to the people I have concerns with in private before having to talk about it in public" is just the right way to talk to people about problems.

> "Bring my concerns to the people I have concerns with in private before having to talk about it in public" is just the right way to talk to people about problems.

Yes, it typically is. However making non-falsifiable public accusations that individuals are doing "dirty shit" is not keeping things "private" and is even worse than making a concrete public statement about a concern you may have.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#62

Post by LanceH »

pohl wrote: post #17
cultofmetatron wrote: post #14

I 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.

I've read the thread, and I'm unsure what the issue actually is. Can someone state what the actual problem is?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#63

Post by ipaddr »

marricks wrote: post #49
kixiQu wrote: post #21

Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread? > And now they want to actually take Amazon's principles and claim that they're Rust's. These just... literally... aren't Amazon's principles. At all. "The practice of coming up with pithy statements to guide decision-making" is the Amazon part. > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. This sound…

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…

Because he is well known many will listen.

The not airing dirty laundry and not detailing the issue means no one knows what is going on and no one can help.

If it's a private fight I would understand if they wanted to keep it private. If it's a public issue what is happening.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#64

Post by jimbob45 »

steveklabnik wrote: post #22
jimbob45 wrote: post #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.

Notably, I did not say that at all. Also, Amazon has never paid me, and I doubt they ever will.

Do you not greatly benefit from Amazon using the language[0]? Without users/patrons, there would be no core Rust team and what bigger patron is there than Amazon? The whole reason the Rust Foundation exists is because you lost a big player's core Rust team (Mozilla) in the first place.

[0]https://www.infoq.com/news/2021/02/rust-foundation-announced...

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#65

Post by open-source-ux »

dyingkneepad wrote: post #10
wodenokoto wrote: post #4

Why 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…

I agree with the points in your comment, but one can also acknowledge that the popularity of some programming languages is buoyed by corporate sponsorship or the association with a company. Would Rust or Go have enjoyed their popularity without the support of Mozilla and Google?

Also, without a generous benefactor, open source languages have to scrape funding together piecemeal from different sources. For example, both Rust and Go have had (or still have) dedicated staff writing documentation for the language. This is a luxury that other languages (e.g. Nim or Crystal) cannot fund or afford.

All languages want to attract developers and a key question is: how can languages without a big corporate benefactor attract funding to help grow the language and build related libraries?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#66

Post by oxymoron »

mjw1007 wrote: post #37
kixiQu wrote: post #21

Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread? > And now they want to actually take Amazon's principles and claim that they're Rust's. These just... literally... aren't Amazon's principles. At all. "The practice of coming up with pithy statements to guide decision-making" is the Amazon part. > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. This sound…

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.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#67

Post by steveklabnik »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #54
jdblair wrote: post #43

The facts are pretty thin here, but this seems to be the core tweet: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437441118745071617 To summarize: * Amazon has too much administrative influence * Amazon has marginalized the core team * also un-stated dirty tricks by Amazon I think rust is great, and I love with the rust community has accomplished, and I wouldn't want to see Amazon break that. But from this thread I don't…

> But from this thread I don't know enough to raise objections. It sounds like a Rust foundation governance issue, the sort of thing that comes up from time-to-time on most big successful projects. I'm also confused. The Tweet thread switches between Amazon and Rust Foundation almost interchangeably. Is the implication that Amazon has co-opted the Rust foundation? Are the other Rust Foundation members being sidelined…

On that last bit, I elaborated on it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513656

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#68

Post by jdblair »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #54
jdblair wrote: post #43

The facts are pretty thin here, but this seems to be the core tweet: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437441118745071617 To summarize: * Amazon has too much administrative influence * Amazon has marginalized the core team * also un-stated dirty tricks by Amazon I think rust is great, and I love with the rust community has accomplished, and I wouldn't want to see Amazon break that. But from this thread I don't…

> But from this thread I don't know enough to raise objections. It sounds like a Rust foundation governance issue, the sort of thing that comes up from time-to-time on most big successful projects. I'm also confused. The Tweet thread switches between Amazon and Rust Foundation almost interchangeably. Is the implication that Amazon has co-opted the Rust foundation? Are the other Rust Foundation members being sidelined…

The ED detail buried in this tweet: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437450014507376649

--- cut here ---

sorry, the tweet length got me here!

they have temporarily forgone an ED. that is, they deliberately did not retain the existing temporary ED while this process went on

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#70

Post by benatkin »

bcantrill wrote: post #45
darksaints wrote: post #29

I can understand every aversion to Amazon having control over Rust. But looking at these principles: * “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.” * “Performant: Idiomatic code runs efficiently.” * “Supportive: The language, tools, and community are here to help.” * “Productive: A little effort does a lot of work.” * “Transparent: You can predict and control low-level details.” * “Versatile: You can do anything with Rust.”…

The problem is that they are bromides and claptrap, not principles. There is an important distinction to be made here between principles and values, which they are not making in part because Amazon themselves do not understand the difference.[0] Having a community define its values is important[1], but this is emphatically not the way to do it -- and these are not it besides. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMGA…

Yes, also known as platitudes.

However, "if it compiles, it works" is a bit more in line with Rust's unique ambitions. The rest are quite generic.

Post reply on HN