4 ms·

I'd hardly call for example firecracker a "pet project by mismanaged megacorp". It's running production workloads - and at AWS scale, I'm fairly certain it's ru

I'd hardly call for example firecracker a "pet project by mismanaged megacorp". It's running production workloads - and at AWS scale, I'm fairly certain it's running more work than most of us here ever touched in their career total. https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker > And they at least have PEPs. Rusts language development has been guided by RFCs since like the beginning. There's no comprehensive standard as in "somebody went and wrote down the current state", but it's also not the case that there's no written spec of how things should behave. You could base a new compiler on that and there's actually developments to have different backends to rustc. Cranelift for example https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/cranelift/rustc.md https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasmtime/blob/main/crane... > "The Rust development team isn't interested in supporting your obscure embedded architecture" or "sorry, this platform was phased out due to technical debt" is what I mean by not serious. So any compiler team that stops supporting some sort of architecture because it's either rare or no longer worth the effort is not serious in your opinion? Like GCC, that has a decision making matrix for that? https://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html https://gcc.gnu.org/backends.html And dropped various architectures along the way?

blub 6y ago
Until Rust becomes at least a mainstream language (and if it becomes one), criticism addressing its lack of mainstream adoption and novelty are perfectly legitimate and these arguments are worth considering when deciding what to base a project on. The fact that a specific corporation has implemented a specific project by using a specific tool is completely meaningless as to the appropriateness of using that tool in another context.
- Xylakant 6y ago
  You're moving goalpost by quite a bit. Mainstream adoption and seriousness - whatever that might be exactly - are certainly not the same metric. For example, in your sibling comment, you mention ADA as serious language. ADA certainly is not mainstream. > The fact that a specific corporation has implemented a specific project by using a specific tool is completely meaningless as to the appropriateness of using that tool in another context. You're entirely correct. That's another goalpost move - nobody proclaimed that being used for business critical projects makes rust in any way magically fit for any and all other conceivable projects.
  - blub 6y ago
    I'm not moving any goalposts because I'm not the original person you were talking to. I was merely saying two simple things: a) the fact that a corporation uses a language is meaningless and can't be used as an argument for anything - except maybe what to learn if you want to get a job there. b) that all arguments based on Rust's novelty, call it "serious language" "mainstream language" or whatever - have merit. Rust is obviously not mature enough for many potential users and you can't convince them by talking about RFCs.
    - Xylakant 6y ago
      > a) the fact that a corporation uses a language is meaningless and can't be used as an argument for anything - except maybe what to learn if you want to get a job there. I disagree with you here. This is a low level production grade application in a domain that requires secure and stable operation. The fact that a team picked a specific language for this application demonstrates a certain level of stability and suitability for various problem domains. There are more examples of large scale rust codebases. That does not imply that rust is magically suited to all problems or that you should pick rust for your project at all cost and without further consideration, but it does mean that rust is used in “serious” projects that have significant monetary value attached to it. > b) that all arguments based on Rust's novelty, call it "serious language" "mainstream language" or whatever - have merit. Rust is obviously not mature enough for many potential users and you can't convince them by talking about RFCs. You’re again arguing against points I never made. Rust has no ISO standard - true. But the point I was responding to was “the implementation is the spec” and that’s plain false. The RFC is written first and the implementation is tested against the RFC. There is a written document that specified expected behavior. Sometimes you need to follow the chain if RFCs modify existing behavior and there’s certainly cases where the implementation doesn’t follow the RFCs, but it not like all c compilers are 100% spec compliant all of the time.

blub 6y ago

Until Rust becomes at least a mainstream language (and if it becomes one), criticism addressing its lack of mainstream adoption and novelty are perfectly legitimate and these arguments are worth considering when deciding what to base a project on. The fact that a specific corporation has implemented a specific project by using a specific tool is completely meaningless as to the appropriateness of using that tool in another context.

Xylakant 6y ago
You're moving goalpost by quite a bit. Mainstream adoption and seriousness - whatever that might be exactly - are certainly not the same metric. For example, in your sibling comment, you mention ADA as serious language. ADA certainly is not mainstream. > The fact that a specific corporation has implemented a specific project by using a specific tool is completely meaningless as to the appropriateness of using that tool in another context. You're entirely correct. That's another goalpost move - nobody proclaimed that being used for business critical projects makes rust in any way magically fit for any and all other conceivable projects.
- blub 6y ago
  I'm not moving any goalposts because I'm not the original person you were talking to. I was merely saying two simple things: a) the fact that a corporation uses a language is meaningless and can't be used as an argument for anything - except maybe what to learn if you want to get a job there. b) that all arguments based on Rust's novelty, call it "serious language" "mainstream language" or whatever - have merit. Rust is obviously not mature enough for many potential users and you can't convince them by talking about RFCs.
  - Xylakant 6y ago
    > a) the fact that a corporation uses a language is meaningless and can't be used as an argument for anything - except maybe what to learn if you want to get a job there. I disagree with you here. This is a low level production grade application in a domain that requires secure and stable operation. The fact that a team picked a specific language for this application demonstrates a certain level of stability and suitability for various problem domains. There are more examples of large scale rust codebases. That does not imply that rust is magically suited to all problems or that you should pick rust for your project at all cost and without further consideration, but it does mean that rust is used in “serious” projects that have significant monetary value attached to it. > b) that all arguments based on Rust's novelty, call it "serious language" "mainstream language" or whatever - have merit. Rust is obviously not mature enough for many potential users and you can't convince them by talking about RFCs. You’re again arguing against points I never made. Rust has no ISO standard - true. But the point I was responding to was “the implementation is the spec” and that’s plain false. The RFC is written first and the implementation is tested against the RFC. There is a written document that specified expected behavior. Sometimes you need to follow the chain if RFCs modify existing behavior and there’s certainly cases where the implementation doesn’t follow the RFCs, but it not like all c compilers are 100% spec compliant all of the time.