Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla Programming Open Source

Rust is Strong, Creates a Trademark-Owning Foundation (rust-lang.org) 57

Posted by EditorDavid from the Rust-never-sleeps dept.
Though Mozilla laid off 250 people last week, the Rust Core Team wrote a blog post Tuesday reminding the world that "the Rust project as a whole is very resilient to such events..." it is a common misconception that all of the Mozilla employees who participated in Rust leadership did so as a part of their employment. In fact, many Mozilla employees in Rust leadership contributed to Rust in their personal time, not as a part of their job. Finally, we would like to emphasize that membership in Rust teams is given to individuals and is not connected to one's employer. Mozilla employees who are also members of the Rust teams continue to be members today, even if they were affected by the layoffs...
But they've still got some news: We've developed legal and financial needs that our current organization lacks the capacity to fulfill. While we were able to be successful with Mozilla's assistance for quite a while, we've reached a point where it's difficult to operate without a legal name, address, and bank account. "How does the Rust project sign a contract?" has become a question we can no longer put off....

The Rust Core Team and Mozilla are happy to announce plans to create a Rust foundation. The Rust Core Team's goal is to have the first iteration of the foundation up and running by the end of the year... The various trademarks and domain names associated with Rust, Cargo, and crates.io will move into the foundation, which will also take financial responsibility for the costs they incur.... As an immediate step the Core Team has selected members to form a project group driving the efforts to form the foundation. Expect to see follow-up blog posts from the group with more details about the process and opportunities to give feedback...

We're excited to start the next chapter of the project by forming a foundation. We would like to thank everyone we shared this journey with so far: Mozilla for incubating the project and for their support in creating a foundation, our team of leaders and contributors for constantly improving the community and the language, and everyone using Rust for creating the powerful ecosystem that drives so many people to the project. We can't wait to see what our vibrant community does next.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rust is Strong, Creates a Trademark-Owning Foundation More

Rust is Strong, Creates a Trademark-Owning Foundation

Comments Filter:

  • Rust is Mozilla’s new plaything (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 22, 2020 @10:46AM (#60429585)
    ‘They forgot about building a browser and decided to Rusterbate instead.

    • "I love the feeling of Rust on my spaghetti coding fingers!"

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]

    • This is stupid. Do you complain whenever a new Google product comes out?

      • I read the blog post. It says Rust has been around for a decade or more.

        So I have to ask, just who is using it?

        It's like those language popularity surveys based on keyword searches that say it's popular, but nobody is really using it - just playing around with it.

        Even so, Rust is only 20th on tiobe. You're still better off betting on c or Java.

        According to Wikipedia, google tried and abandoned it in 2018, Mozilla has now laid off everyone involved with it, it's looking like developing in Rust is goi

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Mozilla has now laid off everyone involved with it, it's looking like developing in Rust is going to be a high risk strategy going forward.

          Using Rust for a real project was always high-risk, because of this and other problems it has.

        • In programming language terms Rust is still young. Its past may not be an accurate predictor of its future. We need something to supplement and gradually replace C. Rust may or may not be the thing to do that, but something will, and given the paucity of credible contenders right now, I think betting on any of them is safer than betting on none.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Google has new products? All I see is search feeding advertising, and maybe Android. The rest is a lot of short-lived half-baked experiments.

  • As I understand it, a spin out to a foundation was already being discussed at various levels for many months. It is unfortunate that the Mozilla layoffs forced certain changes (and likely without some further interactions from now ex-employees) before all the discussions and understandings were complete, but Rust is strong, and will survive on its own.

    It will be interesting to see which companies join the Rust foundation as "founding"/"core" members (i.e. the backers that insure the foundation is on firm s

  • Please choose better names! (Score:3)

    by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Saturday August 22, 2020 @11:12AM (#60429647) Homepage
    Please don't give computer languages foolish names.

    Imagine going to a top manager and saying you want to program a product in Rust [rust-lang.org].
    RUST - Makes iron into useless red dust.
    RUST - Ridiculously Unable Social Tribe?
    RUST - Raunchily Unstable and Seriously Troubled?
    RUST - Rash Under Smelly Toes (Someone else's idea.)

    A list of badly-chosen names [slashdot.org]

    • Futurepower(R)

      Fucking
      useless
      twat
      undulating
      ridiculously,
      ejecting
      pathetic
      opinion-
      wank
      encompassing
      rust
      (& Rust)

      What's your point?
      That you don't get that it is meant to make you think of post-apocalyptic Diesel Punk and anyone can come up with something to make *anything* sound silly?

    • Please don't give computer languages foolish names. Imagine going to a top manager and saying you want to program a product in Rust [rust-lang.org].

      Imagine leaving a decision of any importance to someone who makes up their mind over a name!

      • I would like to agree, but GIMP would seem to be a counterexample. It's a very professional product that is held back IMO by a very unprofessional name, at least by today's rather easily-offended standards.

    • The red dust isn't useless at all, it has some uses, enough so that it is manufactured deliberately for these uses by electrochemically oxidizing iron. Among other things, it is one of the two ingredients used to make thermite.

    • I myself have never tried to choose a name for a new computer language. But apparently it's not easy. I remember reading about how when Java was developed, the developers cast around for quite awhile trying to come up with a good name, and all they got was 'Java', nickname for coffee and name of an Indonesian Island. A lousy choice in my opinion.
      (The only time I remember ever trying to name software was when I tried to write an ear training program to help people like me who can't seem to carry a tune.

  • Suggestion: Form a DAO, not a Foundation

    > we've reached a point where it's difficult to operate without a legal name, address, and bank account

    Those things can also make a nice, centralized convenient target.

    A DAO is automatically global.
    A DAO is inclusive but a Foundation is exclusive.
    Cryptocurrencies make a better, faster and cheaper system of money.
    A DAO built on a public blockchain can be transparent and honest about financial operations (e.g. Treasury, Voting)

    > "How does the Rust project sign a c

    • > > "How does the Rust project sign a contract?"

      > Not a lawyer here, but my understanding is that digital signatures hold up in court.

      Per the esign act (2000), in the United States a digital signature is indeed evidence that a particular person signed the document. Which person? "Rust" is not a person. It's an over-hyped programming language. Programming languages don't make agreements. Hence, they've created an incorporated foundation, a legal person, which can enter into agreements.

      • > Which person? "Rust" is not a person

        DAO's can act legally, like a person would, without having one person in charge. Multisignatures is one way. Smart contracts another.

        • There was one DAO which claimed to hace legal existence as an LLC, last year. That organization ceased to operate within a few months.

          That organization was a Vermont LLC.
          Vermont statute says that LLCs may be controlled by, and liability will rest with, either a) the managers or b) the members

          https://legislature.vermont.go... [vermont.gov]

  • I hope she [fandom.com] marries PC Principal. ;)

    On a more serious note:

    You know people usually declare to be something specifically because they *aren't it* and want to be it, right?

    (Ditto for online user names and RPG characters. Unless it is their throwaway-equivalent account.)

  • Every 3rd day there's some story about this language. Its a wannbe C++ challenger, end of. Like Go it'll gain a small amount of traction, be an also ran for a decade then slowly be forgotten about as c++23/27 eats its lunch and the Ooh Shiny! crowd move onto the next new toy. Meanwhile systems software will continue to be developed in C/C++ and application software in C#, Java and Python.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gweihir ( 88907 )

      Exactly. Rust is a tool in search of a problem. Its supposed benefits are the always same lies pushed by some fanatics. The truth is that the established languages are not broken. The real problem of insecure software is incompetent developers and Rust cannot fix that. IT can make things worse though.

      • Well, IMO, incompetent developers certainly are a problem, and C and C++ allow incompetent developers to cause whole categories of further problems that more memory-safe languages do not. However, most memory-safe languages are unsuitable for systems-level work. There is a compelling need for a safer systems-level language, and that is what Rust, and Go, and a handful of others, aspire to be.

        Whether any single one of these, or even any of them, happen to suffice for this task, I hardly think that there is

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          The thing is that incompetent developers will make severe errors in any language. If you look at the CVE statistics, you will find that there are plenty of opportunities to mess it up drastically in memory safe languages. The often voiced idea that memory safe languages in combination with incompetent developers produce better results is a complete fabrication and not true.

          • Of course they will make bugs, but with an important difference. Memory-related bugs are much more damaging than most others, because, among other reasons:

            * They are often nondeterministic.

            * They are typically harder to replicate and thus to debug.

            * They cannot be found easily, even using state of the art automated testing and code coverage tools.

            * The ones that don't get caught by linters and other tooling often don't get caught at all.

            * The effect is random; the problem may manifest far away from the act

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by gweihir ( 88907 )

              Wrong. Memory related problems are pretty easy to find for _competent_ people with the right tools and approaches. That is the very reason they are easy to attack: They are easy to find. Well, they are easy to find for people with a clue about secure coding.

              Sure, for _incompetent_ people the may be hard to find, but these people are incompetent and will cause problems that are far more devastating.

              Your list shows a decided lack of real-world experience with the subject matter.

  • Is it though? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Saturday August 22, 2020 @01:36PM (#60429949)

    Rust is Strong

    Is it though? There is no formal specification. There is only a single compiler (because there is no formal specification). It has very few support platforms. It has a jarring syntax that defies typical programming language conventions.

    You can claim Rust is anything you want it to be but that doesn't make it true.

    • "Rust is strong!"

      After the layoffs, this is like the knight in the Monty Python skit, after having his arms and one leg cut off, hopping around shouting "it's only a flesh wound."

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        "Rust is strong!"

        After the layoffs, this is like the knight in the Monty Python skit, after having his arms and one leg cut off, hopping around shouting "it's only a flesh wound."

        Pretty much, yes.

    • "It has very few support platforms."

      Not that few. https://doc.rust-lang.org/nigh... [rust-lang.org]

      "It has a jarring syntax"

      It has an unusual concept of ownership and move semantics but the syntax is pretty much recognizable for Java/C/C++ developers.

      • "It has very few support platforms."

        Not that few. https://doc.rust-lang.org/nigh... [rust-lang.org]

        Literally only x86 for three major operating systems are fully supported. Everything else is hit-or-miss.

        • Jesus, they can't even guarantee it will work properly under ARM. Why in the fuck would I ever want to retire C/C++ for this?

          This is a language still in development stage, with a fluid kinda-spec. I'll take a look in three or four years when it has a proper ecosystem, can compile reliably on multiple CPU architectures, and there's a solid language spec. Even Go is further along than this, and I wouldn't pick Go either.

          • That's fair. If it were ready to start to replace C and C++ in any huge way, it would already be doing so. It does need a few more years. Yet, I take objection to those who say C and C++ are just fine as they are. They're not. Not in average hands, and certainly not in incompetent ones. They need to be replaced. Whether Rust meets the bill, or will in the future, we will see.

      • Yeah the syntax is recognizable except for the fact that they changed the precedence of a couple of operators (as if there were a "right" way to do 15 or 18 levels of precedence other in this universe other than "don't fucking change it again!"), killed the C-like "for" (probably because it was too useful and expressive), "fixed" some pointless pet-peeves of its authors, and added some extra quirks and dumb lame shit of their own.

        The result is something just as ugly and inconsistent as C++, but /Different/.

    • It's a language with some interesting concepts, but not wide enough support or a sufficiently large ecosystem of libraries for me to take the leap.

      • Honestly, if they had just modified C++ to do what they want it would have been better for everyone and maybe even got integrated into the latest spec.

        • Modern C++ is certainly safer than legacy C++, or C, in that it gives a sufficiently skilled developer the tools to build systems that don't suck, don't leak memory, don't even directly touch memory when there isn't a need, except via constructs in the STL or Boost or other libraries that have been extensively tested.

          However, there isn't much more you could to do make C++ safer, without making it into a completely different and incompatible language. There is just way, way too much stuff there that can cau

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jma05 ( 897351 )

      > There is only a single compiler

      Here is the second one.

      https://github.com/thepowersga... [github.com]

      I just don't think this is a big deal.

      Rust compiler is based off LLVM, which is a mature system. With an open source compiler for a not commercial language, having too many alternatives is just fragmentation. One of the reasons I like Rust is that it has a standard build tool and a standard package repository. Getting multiple dependencies is a pain in C++; you don't even think much about it in Rust.

      Rust is not that

      • I'm fully aware of mrustc and you're gonna love this: it's highly incomplete. My understanding is that one of top people involved in Rust really hates the mrustc project because it's not written in Rust and wants the people working on it to stop.

        I just don't think this is a big deal.

        It's not a big deal... until you find yourself at the mercy of small group of developers to fix a compiler bug or port the compiler to a platform/architecture. People have warned against putting all your eggs in one basket with good reason.

        One of the reasons I like Rust is that it has a standard build tool and a standard package repository.

        No it doesn't but the of

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jma05 ( 897351 )

          I'd expect it to be incomplete (it clearly says: In-progress), as is the case with most alternative implementations.
          I also don't ever expect it to ever catch up. No one ever expects say, Jython or IronPython to keep up with CPython.

          Sure, it may not be suitable for every kind of project, but I don't see the smaller team to be an issue for most projects. Most don't need extensive platform support or be bothered with obscure compiler bugs. Nothing new would take off if those were the absolute requirements.

          And

  • "Company spins out nascent religion".

    The main irritation with Rust isn't the language, it's the unthinking evangelical zealots who constantly push it as the solution to everything. Even worse than the Docker fanatics.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close