I actually really like Zig's stance on this. Not having company members on the Board + trying to employ developers from the community helps with the issues that Rust is currently facing. Of course due to Rust's history things work differently, but hopefully Steve's comments will get them to look at this issue more critically
I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
91–100 of 363 posts
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#92I 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…
Steve's boss to the rescue, another noted SJW twitter personality.
Hey Bryan, next time you fund a bunch of criminals to loot and burn down Emeryville - I hope they burn down Oxide Computing as well.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#93Is 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…
More than he has to? Dude already named names. Cat's out of the bag, might as well go all the way.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#94While I hope this gets sorted out in a nice way, I do hope Amazon's influence brings more focus on to using Rust for Web services. A lot of people and companies are using it as a systems language but it definitely has some good potential to compete with Go and Java in web services segment. Of course, the ecosystem is almost there but its not deep enough to be fully say yes for arewewebyet.com
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#95Is 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…
[dead]
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#96So far I've only followed Rust peripherally, but if Amazon is going to drive it, that makes me more interested in adopting it. Experience with Scala, and contrast with Golang and TypeScript, makes me want to use a language that has a strong corporate backer.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#97I'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
#98Earlier 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…
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.
This is one of my pet peeves on social media. Nothing is worse than vague references to personal issues or something requiring inside knowledge, while the person refuses to elaborate (not saying this is true here, I haven't dug into this issue). If you're going to make it public, decide to actually make it public.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Honestly, I take issue with all of them -- including that one. "If it compiles, it works" is demonstrably false, and pernicious in perhaps surprising ways. As a concrete example, I believe the DWARF support for Rust to be extremely important -- but why would one invest in improving that if "it compiles, it works"? I know that undermining debugging infrastructure is not the intent here, but that's kind of the point: words are important, and the ones that have been chosen for these are exceedingly sloppy.
Re: I refuse to let Amazon define Rust
#100I 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 interesting part is what's missing. There is no mention of "Openness" or "Community", for example.