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

81–90 of 363 posts

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#81

Post by q3rlkje »

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.

Steve is a full-fledged SJW twitterati. He doesn't know anything about anything.

He just yells through twitter.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#82

Post by cwp »

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".

As the GP says, this probably refers to the practice of having short pithy statements to guide decision making. That is, AWS uses "Tenets" to help guide their decision making, Niko found that useful and wanted to do the same thing for Rust.

The post you linked to above links to a YouTube video[1] where he describes where the principles came from: some "design tenets" he came up with to help guide design of the async feature in Rust. Later he realized that they weren't specific to the async work, but were more about Rust in general. There has since been a lot of iteration involving others in the Rust community, and he's no longer calling them tenets.

And really, if you actually read the principles themselves, do they really sound like they're based on the design tenets that AWS uses? They sound an awful lot like principles that the Rust community has been using, but never articulated before. Maybe some more iteration is necessary, but it doesn't look very sinister.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksSuXNmGZNA&t=2001s

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#84

Post by dochtman »

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…

I for one would be interested in a worked example for how you think this could be better, maybe as part of the internals thread?

https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/blog-post-rustacean-princi...

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#85

Post by secuthro22 »

yannoninator wrote: post #72
secuthro22 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You know what this is about. No, nobody does. You keep making vague statements like this without actually saying anything. >I assume you've read the links in my comment and the tweets Yea, they just link to more of your own comments stating vague things like "I knew this would happen" (again, without ever saying what "this" is). If you have concerns, state them. Otherwise this contributes nothing to the discussion.

So you've admitted you haven't read what I said and the tweets and you've just rushed into the comments section? > I don't understand why Google, Microsoft and AWS et. al are on a board of this new foundation. > It is the structure that I am concerned about. Again, I'd rather have them just sponsor Rust, why wasn't a gold or platinum sponsorship like structure considered without placing them on the board of directors…

What "concerns"? Again you have stated and quoted nothing other than vague "it's the structure" or allusions to "too much power". What about the structure? What power are you alluding to?

What are your concerns, exactly? Do you even have any, or are you just being dramatic about "big company bad"?

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#86

Post by [deleted] »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #33

In terms of how to run a tech foundation, no (former) employee of Mozilla has any standing to talk. Mozilla has watched Firefox market share evaporate, laid off core tech teams, all the while increasing the pay of their leadership. I am completely willing to give Amazon the benefit of the doubt, and let them be involved in the Rust foundation as they see fit. The great thing about open source, is that the code is ope…

[deleted]

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#88

Post by secuthro22 »

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…

>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

Or I can trust neither, and expect that both sides act like adults and actually state their concerns and accusations rather than vague "just trust me, you should be upset" statements.

Whipping everyone into a furor with vague concerns without actually giving enough information to address those concerns is the worst form of "discussion", if you can even call it that.

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#89

Post by znpy »

I have questions:

1. Can you really blame it on Amazon?

2. Shouldn't you actually blaming that on other companies too, like the rest of the FAANGs for starters, for not hiring rust contributors?

3. Aren't the people involved with Rust at Amazon at fault for putting up with the supposedly dirty stuff without saying a word? The paycheck is too fat to do the right thing?

I'm honestly quite fed up with the hypocritical BS of our industry. Mr Klabnik is calling out Amazon, while not calling out the people that prefer the proverbial "fat paycheck" over "the right thing".

I'm quite fed up of people calling out FAANG and similar companies for their toxic behavior while working there in the name of the fat paycheck, or applying as often as possible to get a job there, effectively contributing to those toxic behavior (directly or indirectly).

Those people the Mr Klabnik is so explicit in defending are probably smart and competent enough to go work anywhere, there are probably a number of companies that would accept them to work on Rust. Yet they stay at Amazon.

It's not Amazon's fault here.

The fault is in the people from the Rust team deciding to work/stay at Amazon.

I call BS.

(edit: i'm getting downvoted yet this post hasn't received a proper reply yet)

Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

#90

Post by rst »

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…

Rust isn't the only community that's at risk of getting coopted by corporate sponsors. The PostgreSQL core team now has an explicit policy that no single company employs more than half its members -- but to follow it, last year, they had to expand membership (after companies employing 50% of the prior core team merged, and they didn't want to boot anyone).

https://postgresql.fund/blog/is-it-time-to-modernize-postgre...

Post reply on HN