17 ms·

I refuse to let Amazon define Rust

• tjalfi 5y ago
  Here is a Thread Reader view of these tweets. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1437441118745071617.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1437441118745071617.html
• thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
  >> In the beginning, Rust did have one sole patron: Mozilla. Everyone was uncomfortable with that arrangement, including Mozilla. >> We spent years trying to get away from this situation. It had tons of negative effects. >> Why are we regressing here? Amazon has an interest in using Rust to help build their software, probably for heavy use in AWS. Amazon also has a lot of money and talent that can help Rust continue to grow and improve. It is a delicate balance to accept help and resources, but not let Amazon take too much control. What should be done?
  • poppejans 5y ago
    Not let them have the foundation chair. I think Ashley would've made a great chairwoman, but she just might not have wanted to become chairwoman of the foundation.
    • steveklabnik 5y ago
      > 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 structural issue here is that the foundation decided to forgo extending her contract while looking for a new ED; this means that the foundation currently does not have one, and we don't know when a new one is coming. During that time, the chair of the board has more power than they usually would, and Amazon is chair of the board.
      • edderly 5y ago
        I don't want Amazon to define Rust but I want my pal to define it doesn't exactly sound like a solid argument. Is there any more meat on the bone here?
        • steveklabnik 5y ago
          I did not say "I want my pal to define it" at all. My main thrust here is that no one organization, let alone one person, gets to define what Rust is. And that we have a situation where one organization is gaining a significant amount of power very quickly, and using that to gain even more power.
        • poppejans 5y ago
          Ashley has been really great for the Rust community, isn't currently employed by a massive corporation, and has some really solid views & principles on how to empower open source work. (See some of her talks) Empowering open source work on Rust is exactly what the Rust foundation is supposed to do, which is why I'd really have preferred a Rust foundation with Ashley as ED.
          • kettlecorn 5y ago
            An unfortunate blemish on her record is her handling of `wasm-pack`. She worked to ensure it become a critical part of the Rust/Wasm ecosystem and then silently stopped maintaining it. For most of 2020 / 2021 `wasm-pack` was not updated with pull requests and security fixes because Ashley did not transfer publish rights. Even though `wasm-pack` became unusable for many users it was still described as necessary in the official Rust / Wasm tutorials. Likely this set back the Rust/Wasm ecosystem by discouraging many new members. It would have been far better if she just spoke up and asked for help. It seems she wanted to ignore a problem she didn't want to deal with, which I can relate to, but that's not a good quality in an executive director. Some relevant GitHub issues: https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/914 https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/914 https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/928 https://github.com/rustwasm/wasm-pack/issues/928
  • bythckr 5y ago
    What is the issue with Mozilla being the patron of Rust? They are managing the Firefox project well. Would it be better if Rust was a part of the Apache foundation?
    • httpsterio 5y ago
      The issue was with Mozilla bring the only patron. Also, your sentimrnt about Firefox os not shared by many here.
    • MrBuddyCasino 5y ago
      > They are managing the Firefox project well. Ahem.
    • turbinerneiter 5y ago
      Other problem is being the _sole_ Patreon. Many people think that the best thing for projects like this is to have as many entities involved as possible. Anything that is controlled by single entity is bound to forget the needs of others. For example: neither Mozilla nor Amazon might have Embedded Systems as a core interest, so they will forget about it and might accidently make decisions that ate bad for this use cases. If you also have ARM, Microcontroller vendors and so on on board, they will make sure that this topic isn't overlooked.
      • thesuperbigfrog 5y ago
        >> Anything that is controlled by single entity is bound to forget the needs of others. That is perhaps the biggest concern. When a large tech company controls governance, their needs and priorities come first. We have seen similar concerns with other programming languages in the past: Java (Sun / Oracle), Go (Google), Swift (Apple). Exclusive or dominant control is not necessarily bad (depends on how transparently the governance process runs and who is involved), but it can severely limit the programming language community's effect and leave the needs of some groups unfulfilled.
    • Zababa 5y ago
      I don't agree at all that they are managing the Firefox project well. See the evolution of Firefox's market share over the last decade.
• imwillofficial 5y ago
  FOSS Projects should fight to maintain a healthy independence from corporate influence. That perfect balance ism difficult to define, much less maintain.
• wodenokoto 5y ago
  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.
  • fouc 5y ago
    Judging from Mozilla's past actions, Mozilla can't trust that it's free of manipulation from other companies like Google, etc.
  • dyingkneepad 5y ago
    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 also be affected", like Red Hat pulling the carpet under CentOS or many other examples.
    • munk-a 5y ago
      The solution isn't "Well - let's stop that company from using our product" it's to ride that company for a while and try to remain semi-independent until the spotlight shown on your product by that company attracts other devs. Basically the "Oh hey - Amazon decided to use Rust? Maybe it isn't just a passing fad..." adoption takes time and Rust is still very young.
      • sophacles 5y ago
        No one is suggesting that the company stop using it, where did you get such a silly notion?
    • UncleMeat 5y ago
      But... doesn't Rust have a Foundation that controls resources and can be financially backed? It seems like now you are saying that employees of large corporations also should not have serious roles in such Foundations.
• cratermoon 5y ago
  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.
  • sleepybrett 5y ago
    Unsurprisingly there are a lot of ex-softies at amazon.
    • cratermoon 5y ago
      And apparently at least 5 of them visit HN
      • AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Given how many of the personal attacks on Steve are saying almost the same thing, I don't know that it's "at least five". It might be just one person with multiple accounts. If it's more than one, they're all following the same idea of what message they should be using to smear Steve...
        • cratermoon 5y ago
          Probably the same AI as the FC ambassador garbage. https://www.engadget.com/amp/2019-08-15-there-s-something-fishy-about-amazon-s-fc-ambassadors.html https://www.engadget.com/amp/2019-08-15-there-s-something-fi...
  • zelly 5y ago
    Nah Rust evangelism is pretty organic. I remember it having a cult 6 years ago too, before any of these companies got involved.
    • 5y ago
• yannoninator 5y ago
  Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on programming language foundations for them to have the power to do this. I feared this would happen months ago when Facebook joined the board and even talked to steve about my concerns [0] [1]. Unfortunately it has come true with no surprise. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125591 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26989286 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26989286
  • jhugo 5y ago
    > Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on foundations for them to do this. for them to do what? > I feared this would happen months ago feared what would happen? > Unfortunately it has come true with no surprise. what has come true? In this post and the first thread you linked, you're doing the same thing – raising concerns without saying what those concerns are. They might be valid concerns, but if you only allude to them without ever stating them, nobody will know!
    • addicted 5y ago
      Arguably the same concerns that led to Mozilla wanting to move away from being the sole steward of Rust in the first place.
    • yannoninator 5y ago
      You know what this is about. I assume you've read the links in my comment and the tweets and now you're trying to gaslight the situation. We shouldn't be giving corporations too much power by letting them buy board seats in a foundation to steer the language, in this case Rust. Rust doesn't seem community led anymore.
      • secuthro22 5y ago
        >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.
• zozbot234 5y ago
  Hey, at least they didn't pick "move fast and break things" as a core principle. They're doing better than C/C++.
  • ipaddr 5y ago
    When you think of C/C++ your first thought is move fast and break things? What have they moved fast on and what's breaking for you?
  • flohofwoe 5y ago
    Rust is just getting started to see the same problems as C in the 80's (becoming successful enough that multiple competing compiler implementations emerged, which in turn required standardization). I think that the same will happen with Rust (but those can be good things, if it works more like the C committee and less like the C++ committee): first multiple competing implementations (like gccrs) will emerge, and once the situation gets too messy, a proper specification followed by an ISO standard, and a committee to carefully refine and maintain the standard.
    • Zababa 5y ago
      In the 80's there wasn't internet, which is a huge help to centralize power. For example, look at Python that got popular after internet was a thing: CPython IS Python. People tried alternatives, but popularity brings even more popularity. The same thing happened with Deno recently. Sure, maybe it has a bit of traction, but it's almost nothing compared to Node. It will be the same for Rust and alternative compilers: nobody will use them outside of a few people, that will deal themselves with the consequences.
  • zelly 5y ago
    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.
• cultofmetatron 5y ago
  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 on something I don't know here?
  • pohl 5y ago
    Are we reading the same thread? I don't think their involvement is at issue.
    • LanceH 5y ago
      I've read the thread, and I'm unsure what the issue actually is. Can someone state what the actual problem is?
      • lightspot21 5y ago
        AFAICS Steve wants to ensure that none of the members of the Foundation have more influence than the others. He seems to suggest that Amazon has taken over a significant portion of control lately (IANAL but I think by deciding to not renew the contract of the Executive Director for the foreseeable future, control of the Foundation is vested in the Chair of the Board, aka for now Amazon, and maybe they are trying to do some shady stuff) This is all speculation, I hope Steve can write a blogpost to detail clearly the situation. He already namedropped, and these tweets with scarce information only fuel confusion, which IMHO can do severe damage, as all miscommunication problems.
• HugoDaniel 5y ago
  Regarding Rust, Amazon has done way more good than harm. They helped in solidifying Rust as a professional language with good wages. Developers come and go, it is unreasonable to strike the big company if the future of the language is dependent on the fact that a couple of "core" devs work at it and someone is writing articles about this and that that involves Rust. Other languages have been through worse and survived, why not Rust?
  • addicted 5y ago
    Rust developers were doing very well, even before Amazon came to it. And there is no reason to believe that the growth would not have continued without Amazon's participation. There's the simple fact that many major non Amazon companies are also supporting Rust, so I don't see how this is uniquely Amazon's contributions. This argument appears akin to the original article's "Rustacean principles are based on Amazon tenets" BS.
  • 99_00 5y ago
    I don't see where you and the tweet disagree. Is this your position? "Amazon must or should define Rust".
    • ctvo 5y ago
      No one disagrees with that, I'd think? But where is the evidence that it's occurring as hinted in the thread? "I refuse to let you physically abuse your wife, Jim" implies something.
      • 99_00 5y ago
        I think that having a few prickly characters who have an extreme mistrust of large corporations is health and useful for a community that wants to keep its autonomy. "Oh, representative of mega-corp, we can't do that . I agree it's a great idea and I would love to do it, but the zealots would revolt."
  • leshow 5y ago
    IMO Rust should have a future independent of Amazon. Ideally, we want everyone to be able to write Rust and not have it co-opted specifically for Amazon's purposes (I have no information that this is actually happening-- just reading the tweet like everyone else). I wouldn't want a company like Google to think that Amazon has too much control over the direction of the language and choose not to use it, for example.
• ctvo 5y ago
  Still have trouble parsing this. Some person not with Amazon anymore wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles. And Amazon as heavy users of Rust have people on the committees? What's the process to getting them those seats? Voting? > they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn. How? OpenSource politics is sometimes the worst.
  • dralley 5y ago
    > wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles. Wrote a fluff article about how Rust principles originated with Amazon, which is rank nonsense.
    • oefrha 5y ago
      No? The fluff piece says this new document called “Rustacean Principles” originated from Amazon, which is true. And at a glance it seems fairly banal. https://rustacean-principles.netlify.app/ https://rustacean-principles.netlify.app/
    • NathanKP 5y ago
      This is from Niko Matsakis himself: https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/09/08/rustacean-principles/#how-the-principles-got-started https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/09/08/ru...
      • ncmncm 5y ago
        As I note elsewhere, maintaining a list of individually unobjectionable principles seems innocuous, but it is via the principles omitted from the list being thereby made harder to appeal to that you can get bad results. And, the more there are, the easier it is to reject this or that request.
    • ctvo 5y ago
      I skimmed it because it looked not worth my time. But even then, who was the person, and why does it matter they're inaccurate on some LinkedInsque piece? I'll continue to think this is standard large project FOSS drama. I like Rust, and want to know if there's a real issue, however.
• jimbob45 5y ago
  "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.
  • steveklabnik 5y ago
    Notably, I did not say that at all. Also, Amazon has never paid me, and I doubt they ever will.
    • jimbob45 5y ago
      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/ https://www.infoq.com/news/2021/02/rust-foundation-announced...
      • steveklabnik 5y ago
        I do indirectly benefit from it, as do many people. That's why, as I say, I want them involved! That's not "being paid" though.
• kixiQu 5y ago
  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 sounds like the real concern, and it sounds really concerning, and I hope people come out to speak publicly and candidly about it. But it doesn't seem sensible to pretend that the making a list of adjectives is itself malign.
  • Ansil849 5y ago
    > Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread? When is there not? Tweets are a horrible medium for contextual information.
    • LanceH 5y ago
      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.
      • q3rlkje 5y ago
        Steve is a full-fledged SJW twitterati. He doesn't know anything about anything. He just yells through twitter.
      • stjohnswarts 5y ago
        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.
  • benatkin 5y ago
    Seems to be related to this post: https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/09/08/rustacean-principles/ https://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps//blog/2021/09/08/ru...
• bythckr 5y ago
  What is the issue? Companies & languages, the only issue I am aware of is Oracle suing Google over the use of Java. Are they concern that Amazon will sue the users of Rust language?
  • ncmncm 5y ago
    The language and everything around it are always changing. Which ways they change involve hard choices. The way things are going, you won't know about a big change in direction until after it is all settled. It is no idle worry. It is always hard to imagine how this or that corporation might be at odds with what benefits a language user community. But it is not at all hard for any particular corporation to discover such differences, or to act on those discoveries where they can.
• mjw1007 5y ago
  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 with this.
  • sk2020 5y ago
    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 management that targets LLVM already exists. If contributors can’t tolerate corporate sponsorship, then there is an abundance of languages with little to no commercial interest, especially those of academic origins.
    • stuaxo 5y ago
      Just based on the technology side: When using their systems a big thing, seems to be repackage and rebuild existing systems and create a load of new jargon. The systems seem to be islands, the effect is that at every place they are separated, billing can be introduced. Everywhere, where new names and jargon are introduced lock-in is introduced. I cannot see it being good for the medium or long term health.
      • sk2020 5y ago
        So the worst case is Amazon makes the compiler or some tool or integration a paid service? Is paying for a well-maintained compiler a problem? Ada, Java, FORTRAN, and (I think) Julia all do this, right?
        • eigenspace 5y ago
• darksaints 5y ago
  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.” I don't really see what the problem is. They aren't particularly Amazonian principles, and they all seem like good things to strive for. My biggest complaint would be having Amazonians having control over feature roadmap and code acceptance. Amazon's priorities very often are in direct conflict with literally everyone else's priorities. Not to mention the fact that I've seen a lot of code at Amazon, know how nightmarish it is, and can reasonably infer that the internal politics at Amazon do not allow for, and often penalize, quality code. It is not at all unthinkable that some department with stupid priorities and lots of political clout pushes through some half-baked shit bonanza that will bite everyone else in the ass. That is a problem.
  • bcantrill 5y ago
    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=9QMGAtxUlAc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMGAtxUlAc [1] https://vimeo.com/230142234 https://vimeo.com/230142234
    • benatkin 5y ago
      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.
      • bcantrill 5y ago
        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.
• RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
  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 open source. If enough developers don't like the way stuff is being handled, they are free to fork.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
• xiphias2 5y ago
  ,,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.
  • steveklabnik 5y ago
    "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.
    • xiphias2 5y ago
      Sure, I understand that, but the tweetstorm is very non-specific. The only reason why I share your concern is because you built an amazing personal brand.
      • steveklabnik 5y ago
        I tried to be very specific in my issue with what is public knowledge: Amazon has outsized influence in the project, and is continuing to wield it to gain more. I even cited specific ways in which that is happening. I was also vague about other things because they're secondary concerns to the main one. If Amazon stops trying to be in total control of Rust, I'll be happy.
    • freditup 5y ago
      > "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.
      • 5y ago
• jdblair 5y ago
  The facts are pretty thin here, but this seems to be the core tweet: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437441118745071617 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 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. [edited to fix formatting]
  • PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    > 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? Or is this a deeper objection about the existence of a corporate-sponsored Rust Foundation? I'm also confused by the claims that "Amazon has decided not to have a Rust Foundation ED" when the Rust Foundation is in the midst of an Executive Director search: https://foundation.rust-lang.org/posts/2021-06-25-announcing-executive-search/ https://foundation.rust-lang.org/posts/2021-06-25-announcing...
    • steveklabnik 5y ago
      On that last bit, I elaborated on it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513656
      • jhugo 5y ago
        Could you elaborate on what is so important about the chair of the foundation? From what I understand, it's not really stewardship of the language so much as stewardship of a bunch of administrative minutiae.
• Seattle3503 5y ago
  Steve should write a blog post to flesh out his criticism.
  • david927 5y ago
    I'm fine with Steve. I want Amazon to write a blog post to flesh out the criticism.
• void_mint 5y ago
  Serious: what did anyone involved think would happen?
• akagusu 5y ago
  Google has Go, now Amazon has Rust, and Amazon will not let Rust go away. Amazon has enough money (and no moral or ethics) to take Rust and twist the reality to make people believe Amazon is right and Rust community is wrong. Let's watch the show.
  • cratermoon 5y ago
    They're doing it now. Check out the flagged dead comments libeling Klabnik.
    • CRConrad 5y ago
      Not all of those are necessarily intentionally libelous. Many could be based on misunderstandings caused by reading the InfoWorld article before it was updated to be somewhat less of a paean to Amazon, or not reading it at all.
  • CRConrad 5y ago
    > Google has Go, now Amazon has Rust, and Amazon will not let Rust go away. But will Google let Go rust away?
• codesections 5y ago
  The platinum members of the Rust Foundation are Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Mozilla, and Huawei. I'd pretty much prefer that none of those companies have any role in defining Rust – but, instead, they seem to be about the only ones who do.
  • deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  • xdavidliu 5y ago
    genuinely curious, has there been any evidence in the past of large corporations decreasing the quality of programming languages that they have influence over?
    • smolder 5y ago
      I know some people took issue with Oracle buying Sun and controlling Java, and I think it had something to do with licensing. Perhaps that doesn't qualify, though.
      • Sindisil 5y ago
        I was ... let's say "apprehensive" ... when I heard Oracle had purchased Sun, and thus control of Java. However, with the exception of some communication missteps around the licensing changes (which actually ended up in fully open source JDK, as opposed to the mostly open source JDK in Sun's time), Java has actually done great under Oracle. Amazing what having resources can do for a project, eh? I mean, I'm not thrilled with the licensing model around GraalVM (since it's another "mostly" open source situation), but business is business, I guess. I'd personally prefer that they treat it the same as Java proper, and fund it via support contracts/subscriptions.
    • ncmncm 5y ago
      Companies do periodically try to take over C++. Several have sought to throw their weight around by sending numerous extra bodies to vote at selected ISO C++ Committee meetings. They do not often succeed at that, but some have continuously outsized influence on the process, at all levels, just by their sheer amount of participation. The people they send to meetings on a regular basis do a great deal of important work, and they often disagree among themselves. But sometimes marching orders evidently come down. There was a recent concerted effort to define a process to determine when and where backward ABI compatibility should be abandoned, which would have made it much easier to bring about such occasions. Maintaining a list of individually unobjectionable principles seems innocuous, but it is via the principles omitted from the list being thereby made harder to appeal to that you can get bad results. And, the more there are, the easier it is to reject this or that request.
• geodel 5y ago
  I mean what Steve says makes sense. Steve is far move involved with Rust. However independently reading those documents from Amazon I felt "God, Rust seems more corporate language then even Go, Java or Swift."
  • dralley 5y ago
    Define "corporate language". All of those languages are more or less completely dominated by a single corporate sponsor with a significant portion of the decisions and discussions being done internally, so the potential for drama to spill out is a bit less.
• q3rlkje 5y ago
  Steve is just another loud-ass twitter social-media commie that can't code - much like many of his co-workers. He was also personally involved in the riots last summer that burnt down every major city and killed at least 36 different people. Fuck Steve.
• secondcoming 5y ago
  What are the concerns? Could Amazon fork rust? Personally, I've never cared about the politics behind software projects.
• znpy 5y ago
  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)
  • ncmncm 5y ago
    Answers to none of the questions you ask matter. If Amazon were not in a position throw its weight around, none of the questions would arise.
• Decabytes 5y ago
  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
  • skohan 5y ago
    I guess this is one of the benefits of having the language direction owned by a single author - they might feel a bit more empowered to make this kind of principled stance in the face of strong incentives to trade funding for corporate guidance.
    • kristoff_it 5y ago
      Sure, but we're not just doing things out of principle. We have a clear plan on how to be sustainable without giving up seats. It's not all sunshine and rainbows, there are some compromises to make, but we know what we want and what we're willing to give up in exchange. I wrote a while ago my thoughts here: https://kristoff.it/blog/the-open-source-game/ https://kristoff.it/blog/the-open-source-game/
  • xiphias2 5y ago
    Zig is a very immature language without any real corporate backing. Things get hard when an open source project gets mature and incredibly useful for corporations.
    • kristoff_it 5y ago
      Well, this is already starting to change. As an example Coil (coil.com) has written a distributed financial database called TigerBeetle (tigerbeetle.com) entirely in Zig. All of this will be part of the open source stack that they plan to offer to third paties that want to get into the interledger (interledger.org) business, a piece of financial infrastructure key to make web monetization (webmonetization.org) real, among other things.
• option_greek 5y ago
  While 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
• dboreham 5y ago
  So 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.
  • neon_electro 5y ago
    As far as I understand it, I think the desire here is for diversity in backers; Steve (and Mozilla) wasn't comfortable with Mozilla being the strongest influence, and he just wants to make it clear he disagrees with Amazon replacing Mozilla in that respect. It sounds like he is totally appreciative of the support Rust's ecosystem has received already and will continue to receive.
• kybernetyk 5y ago
  I'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.
  • myrrlyn 5y ago
    ?
  • xpe 5y ago
    The primary goal of Rust has never been to 'Take over' C++ or to convince as many C++ orgs and developers to switch.
  • xpe 5y ago
    Please provide more specifics so we can learn from their concerns ... Experienced C++ developers have been an essential part of moving Rust forward.
  • xpe 5y ago
    > I'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. What positive reasons can you offer that suggest Amazon will be a good steward for Rust's continued success? You think Rust has failed? Wow. What are your expectations for a new language to 'overtake' a behemoth in terms of adoption? Can you share any examples that underlie your expectations? I admit ignorance when it comes to Amazon's contributions to the open source community. This is not willful -- I just have not noticed much discussion or mention of them. (We all know about their contributions to computing infrastructure of course.)
• Scarbutt 5y ago
  It's funny because I don't think this guy has ever written a public library in Rust. Can he even code at all?
• noisy_boy 5y ago
  I think that folks that are asking Steve for more details are not being unreasonable. It came as somewhat surprising to me (and probably to most folks who are not involved with the core/admin side of Rust). However, I also think that his tweet might be more in the pre-emptive vein of "cease and desist" leveraging his personal standing in the community instead of actually getting into a war with Amazon's side. The objective seems to be basically to let them know that if they continue with their current behavior, it will be met with resistance. He is taking a risk though because we don't know enough to have an informed view of the actions that might have triggered this.
  • athrowaway3z 5y ago
    It's not unreasonable, but I think we'll have to wait to see if it's necessary. It seems to me that he has tried to make a point in private, but it got dismissed. It's very common to see power structures evolve into an unbalanced state, even with everybody trying to do the best thing. Hopefully some spotlights are enough to get to a workable balance.
• csomar 5y ago
  Steve should layout his grievances publicly. I'd trust Steve more than Amazon, but at this point we need to understand what is going on. As leadership/control seems to be mostly on the domain name, name, logo and Github repository; at this point it's possible to fork the project and move to another leadership. There is enough traction, in my opinion, that the "marginalized core devs" could take on the project again. The contributions made by Amazon could then be merged selectively.
• riofoxx 5y ago
  T.o a.s.s.i.s.t y.o.u i.n t.r.a.d.e.s f.o.r b.e.t.t.e.r i.m.p.r.o.v.e.m.e.n.t on c.r.y.p.t.o.c.u.r.r.e.n.c.y W.h.a.t.s.A.p.p (+13052395906)
• Ericson2314 5y ago
  While we could certainly use FAANG-level $$, situations like this make me glad Haskell has especially little usage in SV.
• whateveracct 5y ago
  This is what happens when you seek (success at all costs)
• keewee7 5y ago
  >I want big companies to be involved in Rust Why? Steve Klabnik is one of my favorite technical writers. He is also an anti-capitalist. Early Rust documentation contained a lot of references to influential 20th century Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg. I feel people like him should increasingly stand their ground instead of being apologetic about their views.
  • steveklabnik 5y ago
    I don't think it's possible to build a production grade programming language today without large amounts of capital. Unfortunately, companies are the only way to gain access to that amount of money. I elaborated a bit on that over here: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1397930913854590976 https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1397930913854590976
    • rtfeldman 5y ago
      Elm did it. :) Elm isn't as big as Rust or other languages, but it's definitely production-grade (in that loads of companies are using it in production), and the only capital that's been put into it is approximately one full-time software engineer being paid to work on it for 5ish years.
    • AndyKelley 5y ago
      Challenge accepted >:-)
      • steveklabnik 5y ago
        I'm rooting for you :)
      • ncmncm 5y ago
        Here's hoping you finally get lambdas and destructors, and can step up.
        • AndyKelley 5y ago
• rgvr 5y ago
  Deja vu? This seems like the story of the C++ Committee all over again, isn't it? Maybe this is the price you pay for adoption and popularity..
  • throwaway17_17 5y ago
    I get what you mean, but there is a key difference and I think that difference is driving a good portion of then for/against comments in this thread and elsewhere. The entirety of the Rust Principles, etc, seems to stem from the belief, supported by Niko in the Principles blog post and others by wording, that Rust is not just a programming language, but is a ‘community’. I can find no analogue in the C++ Committee, or user base generally. C++ is a programming language that individuals and groups use to make software, full stop. This difference leads to arguments/stances/positions that have very little to do with the material definition of the technological tool and more to do with some loosely defined feelings of ‘community’. The C++ Committee story was primarily about Google and other large corporate interests advocating a large techno local change in the language to benefit their use case with no input or consideration for other users of the tool, but this seems to be primarily focused on feelings of non-community control and business structuring. Maybe I’m wrong and Amazon is having an influence on Rust, the programming language, that disregards fit for purpose for non-Amazon developers, but I’d need to see something to support that before your comparison is a better fit.
    • twoodfin 5y ago
      The C++ Committee story was primarily about Google and other large corporate interests advocating a large techno local change in the language to benefit their use case with no input or consideration for other users of the tool Any links for background on this debate?
      • throwaway17_17 5y ago
        As I posted in the sibling comment, the Goals submission is at [1]. The Reddit and HN threads are pretty easy to search for (and there were quite a few). Summary, as I remember it, a group of primarily FAANG, with a large Google presence, authored a submission for the C++ Committee which was effectively a flag in the sand saying they (and their very deep pockets) wanted C++ to be primarily gear toward large, modern style development at large company scale. Removal of backwards comparability, limiting standard to only 64 bit architecture, preference for unstable ABI and language standard, etc. The document acknowledges that the use case they want the committee to push C++ towards is not for everyone, primarily because they all represent large money/scale interests, but they want the committee to go there way anyway. 1 - http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p2137r0.html http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p213...
• ajross 5y ago
  Had to chime in on the first of the named "principles" of the language, because it makes a good example of what I think is wrong with the Rust community: > “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.” This isn't a principle. This is a subtweet. The principle being elucidated is something more like "fully specified semantics" or "no undefined behavior". And that's fine. But phrasing it like this is (1) obviously a lie as plenty of Rust code will compile that doesn't work and (2) needlessly picking a fight with C/C++ instead of engaging productively in a discussion of tradeoffs. Meh. It's time for Rust to start doing more and saying less, IMHO.
  • c-cube 5y ago
    It's not just about UB, it's about the design encouraging good code and defensive programming. That includes enums, non nullability, immutability by default, etc.
    • ajross 5y ago
      Still seems poorly captured by "if it compiles, it works", no? The point was this was marketing, not a statement of principle. Rust needs to do more of the latter and less of the former. The time for marketing was years back.
    • CRConrad 5y ago
      It's always hilarious how near totally amnesiac this whole industry is. People are constantly "inventing" shit that already existed many many decades ago, including all the bugs and warts, oblivious of the fixes and improvements from the decades in between. AFAICS much -- if not most? -- of the stuff Rust is being lavishly praised for now already existed in Nikolaus Wirth's original Pascal from the early 1970s.
• munificent 5y ago
  I think Steve has a well earned reputation for being decent and trustworthy. I can understand the desire here for more details so that others can come to a firmer conclusion but try to put yourself in Steve's shoes. It is very hard to publicly criticize some of the behavior of a group you are a member of without burning bridges or deeply harming relationships. At the same time, saying nothing publicly is read as tacit approval. I interpret the article as a giving Amazon credit for why people like Rust, and Steve's response as a public disagreement saying that such credit is unwarranted and gives Amazon more power than it should have over Rust's future direction.
  • PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    > but try to put yourself in Steve's shoes. It is very hard to publicly criticize some of the behavior of a group you are a member of without burning bridges or deeply harming relationships. In another comment, Steve said he was not a member of the Rust Foundation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514771
    • mjw1007 5y ago
      Is individual membership even an option? https://foundation.rust-lang.org/info/become-a-member/ https://foundation.rust-lang.org/info/become-a-member/ doesn't seem to contemplate it.
      • steveklabnik 5y ago
        It is not currently an option, as far as I know. That said as a member of project leadership I would be eligible to run for various positions and be one, but I did not.
        • rvz 5y ago
          Well that's interesting. It looks like the Linux Foundation all over again and its very surprising to see how one could not for-see that such issues like this would happen. After reading the comments, I think that this one [0] even directly shared the same structure concerns [1] you are bringing up and not giving companies like Amazon too much control. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513316 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125591
• greeklish 5y ago
  I think seanmonstar also works at Amazon, his projects are exceptional and I've been following him from his MooTools days. Many of his peers went to work on React. Others like davidwalsh worked at Mozilla.
• hyperpape 5y ago
  One confusing thing highlighted in the thread: the article says Niko Matsakis is "co-lead of the Rust programming language project". Niko is a long-term participant in Rust, and former core-team member (https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/core https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/core), who's made huge contributions. However, it's not clear to me what that co-lead reference means. The closest that comes up is that he's a co-lead of the rust language team, which is distinct from the core team. Quite possible I'm missing something, would love to see someone make it more clear. Source: https://twitter.com/sheevink/status/1437446217806528523 https://twitter.com/sheevink/status/1437446217806528523. I personally am not saying the article is misleading, just that I am confused.
  • burntsushi 5y ago
    "co-lead of the Rust programming language project" is a categorical error. There is no such position. The article has a mistake. Niko is co-lead of the language team.
    • stuaxo 5y ago
      I guess there is that position, "at Amazon", and writing that was a bit of a tell about how they see ownership already.
      • burntsushi 5y ago
        Or, ya know, a mistake.
• mastrsushi 5y ago
  He doesn’t even mention anything maligned with Amazon taking part in Rust. Plenty of successful languages have been developed by large companies.
• fallingfrog 5y ago
  I think you can trust the intentions of individual Amazon coders, but it’s best to assume that the priorities of the management are malicious.
• phendrenad2 5y ago
  Oh boy I can't wait for Rust to become difficult to use anywhere other than AWS Lambdas.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• potiuper 5y ago
  Even if the Amazon battle is won it's nothing more than a drain against the seemingly futile war against iron oxide.
• mleonhard 5y ago
  Large organizations are full processes for balancing power between internal groups. As Rust Foundation, Amazon, and other companies become more involved, friction will happen more frequently. The Rust Foundation will need processes for balancing power between the companies and various groups inside the companies. PR pieces are usually full of deception. I expect that Rust Foundation will end up with a process for approving Rust-related PR from supporting organizations. They will pay someone to do that work. So far, Rust has been run by people who behave reasonably. I'm confident that they will resolve this issue. They will resolve it with open discussion, expressing and acknowledging different opinions and needs, explaining tradeoffs, and progressing steadily to consensus. Here's a great talk by previous Rust head Ashley Williams about Rust's decision-making process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLstJFvdl4s&t=1808s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLstJFvdl4s&t=1808s Some articles about it: - http://aturon.github.io/tech/2018/05/25/listening-part-1/#the-great-int-debate-and-the-no-new-rationale-rule http://aturon.github.io/tech/2018/05/25/listening-part-1/#th... - http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2020/12/30/the-more-things-change/#on-pluralism-and-the-rust-organization http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2020/12/30/the-... - https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/ https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/
• galkk 5y ago
  After reading Rust principles I'm confused why author is against entire idea of principles and equates them to Amazon principles.
• xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
  I've read through the comments in this thread, the linked Twitter thread, and the article linked by the top tweet, and I'm still confused. What is Amazon doing to define Rust here? I worked at Amazon, I do not hold a positive opinion about the company/working there, but I do not see what they have done that is remotely harmful or aggressive. Can someone spell that out for me?
  • detaro 5y ago
    Holding (what is perceived to be) too much control over core roles of the project.
    • gtirloni 5y ago
      That's all? What should we be outraged about specifically?
      • detaro 5y ago
        If you can't figure out what to be outraged about, maybe don't be outraged?
        • gtirloni 5y ago
          I'm not outraged at all. Where did you get this from? I was asking for details because everything has been very vague.
          • CRConrad 5y ago
            There are no more details to be had -- nor needed. It's very simple: If you find the mere fact that one organisation is amassing an apparently undue amount of influence something to be worried about, then be; if you don't, then don't. The fact that you're obviously trying to paint a legitimate worry as overwrought histrionics by spelling "worried" as "outraged" would seem to indicate you're already leaning towards the latter -- perhaps sufficiently so to be intentionally trying to ridicule the original worry.
• pushkine 5y ago
  I used to follow @steveklabnik, he retweets left wing activism twice as much as he tweets about Rust. I'd assume he's coming into the conversation with unconditional hatred for Amazon. I only have a dozen hours of experience working with Rust, and so far I loved it. However I also know that many of the minds that designed and built the language just aren't there anymore. From what I picked up "async/await" is one of the latest features added to Rust in late 2019 and it seems to be universally agreed as rushed and not-so-good language design. Everyone speaks of Rust with such high regards yet Mozilla somehow decided to lay off its entire team mid 2020. From my point of view Rust as a whole is great today but it increasingly feels like its potential has plateaued and there's not much creative work left to do with it, from here on out it's all IDE support, maintenance and performance enhancements. I don't see what's wrong with letting Amazon take care of those things.
• amrrs 5y ago
  Here's a response to tbe same from Mara Bos: >What a bullshit. Steve is absolutely right that the 'core team' is becoming less relevant. But that's not because Amazon is taking over. The core team hasn't really been steering or leading Rust anymore. Other team members have been doing that. Many of which don't work at Amazon. https://twitter.com/m_ou_se/status/1437493300496420868?s=19 https://twitter.com/m_ou_se/status/1437493300496420868?s=19
  • FemmeAndroid 5y ago
    For context, Mara is the Rust library team leader. The Rust library team maintains the Rust standard library. https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/library https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/library
  • mzs 5y ago
    This has reached vague-booking level of OS drama: >Oh and one thing I should say too: suggesting that core doesn’t do anything during the same year we managed the implosion of Mozilla and the creation of the foundation is incredibly disrespectful to those on core who did all of that intense work. https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437551240121098241 https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437551240121098241
    • zozbot234 5y ago
      Is this supposed to be a reference to Mara's post? They never said that the core team is not "doing anything", only that they're less involved in steering the Rust project as a whole. Managing the implosion of Mozilla and the creation of a new foundation may be very worthwhile and perhaps intense work, but it has remarkably little to do with Mara's narrower point about project direction.
      • ctvo 5y ago
        This is about the time I confirmed it was FOSS drama. Disrespectin’ muh contributions is a tune we’ve heard.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• ljm 5y ago
  This is a naive take, I admit, but...how does Amazon co-opt the Rust Foundation without the Rust Foundation allowing Amazon to co-opt it? Is Amazon hiring existing members of the Rust Foundation such that they weren't involved with Amazon but now are? e.g. paying these people to work on Rust but under Amazon's terms? Isn't it then up to the Rust Foundation to declare this a conflict of interest, perhaps, and to sever ties with that member? That said, Mozilla really did drop the ball by laying off all their staff on the Rust project and effectively defunding it. They might have well have created a power vacuum and Amazon beat Microsoft to the punch.
• wting 5y ago
  There's too much money in Rust, and many power brokers at play here from Google, Amazon, MS, et al. People are incentivized by money and career growth to lead Rust's future. I think core members should be the one leading the foundation, but there are a few reasons this hasn't happened: 1. Core members are burnt out. 2. This is not their primary skill set (administration vs engineering/community building). Other languages have been blessed with an administrative group (GvR/Python[0], Hickey/Clojure), corporate sponsor (Pike/Go), or committee (C++, Java). The counterpart for Rust is core member/Mozilla, but there is no appetite for this responsibility. 0: I like this talk about governance models at Pycon 2019, after GvR stepped down as BFDL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAC83JVDzL8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAC83JVDzL8
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• yutijke 5y ago
  The issue is probably touchy. It may not be possible to share "objective" facts with the public. This unfortunately makes it harder to differentiate it from FUD or another instance of open source drama. The thread starts with a (vague) statement against Amazon trying to expand its control on the Rust project. It later ends up being a spat between rust team members (who aren't a part of Amazon) on the role of the Core team. I feel Steve does not have enough support among the members of the rust teams for whatever he was going for with this. The derailing of the discussion also makes it seem as if there are other issues at play. Sadly, this may end up amounting to nothing more than burnt bridges.
  • vlang1dot0 5y ago
    Yeah given the general responses from other people involved with the project, Steve seems pretty far out on a limb here.
• est31 5y ago
  IDK I think this is overblown. Amazon employs two core members of Rust leadership. Both of whom worked hard on making Rust amazing like few others did. Both of whom who joined Mozilla to work on amazing projects for wages below what different places in the industry would pay. Do such people really betray their project of passion for money? Note that joining Amazon alone is no such act. It's joining Amazon and then becoming a heavy lobbyist for whatever Amazon wants to do with the language. Also note that leaders of teams don't have many special rights. They are more primus inter pares than bosses. This doesn't mean that people don't listen to them, but it's more informal and due to respect of the individual from what I can see. Respect that they'd lose if they supported some crazy Amazon idea that is harmful for the language. As for core team vs foundation issues. I share concerns voiced in the community that the foundation is intransparent. But ultimately, the core team as well as the foundation don't do day to day operation of the language. Maybe Steve sees something that I don't, and he's certainly in a better position to see things, but I don't see much of a threat, at least not right now.
  • deanCommie 5y ago
    > It's joining Amazon and then becoming a heavy lobbyist for whatever Amazon wants to do with the language. To clarify, is that happening, or is that a warning that vigilance is needed to ensure it doesn't happen?
    • zozbot234 5y ago
      I don't think there has been any evidence of this. But I've seen some complaints that development of Rust is becoming somewhat less transparent and less deliberation-driven; it can be somewhat harder for community members outside of the teams proper to provide appropriate input. This is only a very slight concern so far, but it makes the risk of 'lobbying' behavior a bit higher.
      • kibwen 5y ago
        > I've seen some complaints Can you elaborate? IME Rust development is as transparent as ever.
• vjust 5y ago
  Its like back when XML was a thing, and people were freaked out about Microsoft's outsize influence on the XML standards committee. MS tried very hard to put in features into XML that would align nicely with their proprietary tools. IBM and others fought to keep XML agnostic. Satisfying that XML doesn't occupy an important place... given how Microsoft tried to take advantage. Sometimes vendors will influence, if not in intent, in 'naturally' justifying 'intuitive' features - intuitive in the sense it might line up nicely with their future roadmaps? Amazon has got some negative publicity with exploiting Open Source projects and using it in AWS. Recall how Oracle has 'guided' Java. Not saying that Amazon will come with its own agenda. In general Amazon has played nice with OSS.
• thih9 5y ago
  The InfoWorld article [1] (linked from the first tweet of the thread) has now been updated: > Editor’s note: A previous version of the article correctly stated that the Rustacean Principles were modeled after Amazonian tenets, but unintentionally may have implied that Amazon was somehow responsible for Rust development. Amazon employs several Rust maintainers and contributors, but it is just one of many companies with employees involved. [1]: https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust.amp.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust...
• throw_m239339 5y ago
  Well, if only Rust had a solid custodian, defender of open source... Oh wait, Mozilla basically ditched the project, and Servo, and Firefox OS... blame Mozilla.
  • detaro 5y ago
    The concern "A single organization shouldn't have too much power" did apply to Mozilla just as well.
    • throw_m239339 5y ago
      I'll take Eich's era Mozilla over Amazon as a custodian of anything Open Source.
      • detaro 5y ago
        The fact that you feel the need to specify an era is a pretty good sign the general concern does indeed apply.
• SkyMarshal 5y ago
  Fwiw, as far as I'm aware, the principles and priorities outlined in the referenced article [1] were core Rust principles from the early days while it was still a project at Mozilla, rather than anything Amazon has defined recently. They may have become more formalized over time, into a sort "Six laws of Rustbotics" sort of thing. Eg.: - First Law: “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.” - Second Law: “Performant: Idiomatic code runs efficiently, except where doing so conflicts with the First Law.” etc. The crux of it all is prioritizing reliability and deterministic elimination of undefined behaviors above all other priorities. Only a handful of languages have done that in the past (Ada, Haskell, etc), but none reached mainstream acceptance in the way that Rust has. That is something new. I'm not aware of that particular value being closely associated with Amazon, moreso than Google or any other US Big Tech company. If not for Steve's concerns here, I would have guessed the opposite, that Rust is defining Amazon's engineering culture and principles, than the other way around. But it also sounds like Steve is being the canary in the coalmine here, and calling out something that may not be a huge problem right now, but could become so in the foreseeable future, and implicitly calling for governance reform similar to other communities [2] to prevent it. An ounce of prevention now is worth a pound of cure later. [1]:https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust.html https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust... [2]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514002 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514002
• loraxclient 5y ago
  What is the worst case scenario that the author imagines happening to Rust due to Amazon’s influence (or anyone’s influence)? This is unfamiliar to me - are there notable stories of what poor steering has done to a programming language? What were the consequences? I can parse the basic grievances here on power dynamics, losing control of something you helped build…that’s familiar enough…but I’m having trouble understanding the gravity of what the author is passionate about preventing. (In case it isn’t obvious I’ve never been a long term contributor to an open source project - genuinely curious about the context here)
• eximius 5y ago
  Summary: - The Board of the Rust Foundation intentionally let the contract for the current acting Executive Director (ED) of the Rust Foundation lapse. - It was intentional because it would have been easy to extend the contract but it was chosen not to. - The lack of ED gives Amazon a great deal of control as the Chair of the Rust Foundation. - There may be some underhanded or subjectively dirty things being done by Amazon administratively or PR-wise regarding Rust. - Because of the power imbalance created by the lack of ED, those actions are a cause for concern. - Regardless of how/why/who caused this, regardless of intent for administration, this situation should be fixed. Solution: The Board of the Rust Foundation needs to pick the damn ED and establish limits on membership affiliation like other projects.
• hardwaresofton 5y ago
  One thing I haven't seen highlighted is the difference in attitude/action between Amazon as a corporate sponsor and other corporate sponsors. Rust has other corporate sponsors (Microsoft is on there essentially twice w/ the GitHub acquisition) -- has any such attempt been made by other sponsors? That aside I'm convinced this is the fate of all board/complicated governance structure popular open source project. If you make the governance structure that mirrors corporate constructions, people who work at big corporations and know how the politics work are going to find themselves right at home. I don't know what the solution is, you can't expect every project to have a BDFL and there is a lot of work to be done on a huge open source project, but I always see the adoption of a corporation-like governance structure without explicit limitation on the power/influence of involved groups/corporations as a red flag. Steve mentions it himself but the idea that Mozilla is anything like Amazon is a farce. I'd trust Mozilla to build me a browser (they do), a phone (they did), a physical computer and whatever else because of how they're structured, what they profess, and their track record. I'd trust Amazon to do none of those things (mostly because I thankfully have other options right now). Mozilla supported this project from it's inception and has made it what it is (along the way reducing it's own influence to make sure there was no misconception). Amazon has no such track record that I know of, and it's corporate structure does not suggest any alternative driving force outside of maximizing profit. The contributors who happen to work at Amazon who were able to contribute to Rust under Amazon's largesse (whether direct or indirect) deserve the status they have achieved within Rust, but there is a conflict of interest. If that conflict of interest grows, then it has to be addressed.
• gopiandcode 5y ago
  There was an interesting quote under one of the replies: > The power of rust is that it's for the people... not for massive orgs to wield in order to make more money Given that most rust code is licensed under non-copyleft licenses (MIT, etc.) I wonder where this impression came from? I have always had the impression that rust was exactly that - just another tool for massive orgs to make more money. In contrast, a language ecosystem more like elisp, where most code is GPLed seems more "for the people".
• nabakin 5y ago
  I think Steve is being too vague for me to understand well. Let me see if I can break it down. Steve is suggesting Amazon is becoming a problem to the future of Rust. He is suggesting that Amazon is coming to control Rust. The evidence he is giving to this end is: 1. An Amazon employee creating Rust principles that shape the community 2. An Amazon employee being effectively in control of the Rust Foundation because there's no Executive Director atm 3. Amazon employees taking up many positions in leadership 4. Some supposed "dirty shit" going on by Amazon behind the scenes 5. The core team losing their recognition and status? #1 would be a problem if they didn't consult the rest of leadership first or if the principles are pushing forward Amazon's own personal agenda but Steve isn't making those claims as far as I know. #2 is a problem atm but I assume a temporary one. Steve isn't making the claim that they are not appointing an ED in order to gain power but this is a problem that remains nonetheless. Amazon should not be in control of the Rust Foundation. #3 Amazon employees should not be able to control the Rust Foundation, if this is what is happening. #4 Steve claims something dirty is happening behind the scenes by Amazon. Unfortunately, we don't have details on what supposedly dirty things are happening. Of course if Amazon is pushing their interests on the rest of the Rust team, that would be a problem. #5 Steve refers to the core team being undermined but I don't understand what he means by that. Is no one listening to the core team anymore? Are they not being included in important leadership decisions? Is the core team not functioning as it was originally designed? What is the problem here specifically? It does seem like Amazon is gaining a lot of control over Rust and that should probably be adjusted. Firstly, by appointing an executive director. I don't see any evidence of malice or agenda pushing by Amazon though. I cannot agree with Steve here without evidence. The core team should be working as intended too. It seems like Rust leadership needs to come together to discuss these issues and try to resolve them. I'm not sure why Steve is asking the community to solve them when it's leadership that has the decision-making power here.
  • volta83 5y ago
    FWIW these are not "Amazon employees that infiltrated the Rust ranks to take over". Mozilla fired everybody, and companies heavily invested in Rust like Amazon, Facebook, etc. hired them. So over night some people have labeled the opinions and work of these people as "Amazon opinions". Amazon has a lot of people working on improving Rust itself, and this gives them power, because they decide on what stuff the people they are paying work on, so that stuff gets done sooner, and often better, than the stuff done by volunteers on their free time. There are other companies invested in Rust, so if they see this as a problem, they can hire more people to work on Rust too. Steve criticizes this, but their criticism is not constructive, since they propose no solution. As long as people that work on Rust get paid by companies, those companies control what they work on, and that's going to be something that these companies care about.
• zelly 5y ago
  Solana has done more for Rust adoption than either Amazon or Mozilla
• lenkite 5y ago
  We will soon have "Amazon Rust™" for only 0.01$ per minute of Rust compile time.
• okram 5y ago
  Amazon has done the same thing to Apache TinkerPop (and Apache in general). They got the founder kicked off the project for being a "Nazi racist." https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/23/apache_tinkerpop_speech/ https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/23/apache_tinkerpop_spee... Why would Amazon want the founder off the project? See the following presentation which interestingly enough, is no longer indexed by DuckDuckGo nor Google: https://www.slideshare.net/slidarko/mmadt-a-virtual-machinean-economic-machine https://www.slideshare.net/slidarko/mmadt-a-virtual-machinea...