71–80 of 99 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow they've managed to stay out of the news, while Rust has been endorsing BigCo's regularly for a while now...
What does it mean for Rust to be endorsing BigCos?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Python, C, C++, Perl, Bash were pretty successful before the modern FAANG culture. Same for projects other than programming languages, e.g. Linux. I don't feel comfortable with corporate-driven FOSS. I'll stick with community languages.
As for C, sure, AT&T is so much better than FAANG. C++ was also heavyly corporate. Python won over Ruby because of FAANG support (I personally like Ruby more, but as it's not supported by big companies, it remained behind in deep learning for example). Also NVIDIA has great Python support, which is really important for high performance software development. As for Perl, I just look at it as a stepping stone for more…
The concern comes from having a *small* number of companies with a notoriously aggressive behavior controlling a project.
Google is especially known for using products as weapons against competitors and drop them suddenly after a while.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? What effect would this have, in your opinion? Also, who decides what is "good", and what is "evil"? For proper licensing terms, a judge can decide whether those terms have been violated within a given jurisdiction. Would you have philosophers take their place? What a bunch of nonsense.
> Also, who decides what is "good", and what is "evil"? Huh, Rust developers have plenty of opinions about "good" and "evil" on everything under sun. They peddle it non-stop on social media. So they seem perfectly capable to decide on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps in capability, not so much by reputation or social utility.
True but if someone would pay you 200k to develop rust things wouldn’t you say yes?
I was just adding context to the other comment with my own. I've no qualms with whomever spending money on whatever language they choose.
Unless it's VB. Yuck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is hard to imagine progress in any technology that couldn’t also be used for evil. Better food production could feed bad guys. Curing cancer could extend the life of a mass murderer. I don’t think we will stop evil corporations by preventing them from using memory safe and performant programming languages.
The other post just raised it as something to think about. It's a good idea to do a sanity check once in a while. More technology has generally been better, but not in all cases and it's not guaranteed to continue that way. Bitcoin is cool, but the consequence is using a lot of energy and facilitating a lot of extortion. Open source seems great, but it also facilitated the rise of AWS which effectively locks people o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust should include in their license: "The Software/Language shall be used for Good, not Evil" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...
Who decides what’s good and what’s evil? Real life isn’t kindergarten, world isn’t black and white. Even for things that most of people can agree are good, you’ll have negative externalities.
Seems lots of people left Mozilla.
Statement from the Rust Foundation: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/posts/2021-04-29-membership... It seems there are a few new silver members as well.
The Facebook Member director's letter linked there is also very interesting: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/posts/2021-04-29-introducin...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also, who decides what is "good", and what is "evil"? Huh, Rust developers have plenty of opinions about "good" and "evil" on everything under sun. They peddle it non-stop on social media. So they seem perfectly capable to decide on that.
The Rust developers don't have the power to enforce a license – that's up to courts.