4 ms·

To provide a second opinion, you can just open a rustc bug. In fact, the Rust bug repository has thousands of opinions about thousands of things.

Subsentient 5y ago
And if you disagree with the unilateral decisions of the rustc developers? "Go fork it or write your own"? Yeah that's what we're doing. Don't be surprised when what was often a taunt in Rust-related arguments actually ends up happening. :^P
- volta83 5y ago
  > if you disagree with the unilateral decisions of the rustc developers? "Go fork it or write your own"? Yeah that's what we're doing If that's what you want to do, that's great. If you experiment with new stuff, and it pans out, Rust itself might benefit from that. Since your goal is implementing something that differs from "Rust", calling it "Rust", is misleading at best, I think is unethical, and given the intent, probably illegal in most of the world since "Rust" is a registered trademark... (IANAL but if you were implementing a frontend for Rust, you could maybe use it, but for an intentionally different language, doesn't sound like it)
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    I've been reading comments in this thread and i wonder what actual arguments you have against gccrs, if you have links to more detailed resources. As a Rust user, i'm happy people are working on alternative implementations so specs can get new eyes. > implementing something that differs from "Rust" (...) I think is unethical, and given the intent, probably illegal I don't understand this statement. One of the contributors said earlier in the thread something that sounds opposed to your interpretation: > For inconsistencies, we have stated in our FAQ that if GCC rust does not behave the same as rustc. Then it is a bug with GCC rust. Also, "your code is illegal" is not very much an ethics argument in my book. Digital weaponry like mass-surveillance systems are mostly legal, while harmless ThePirateBay/PopcornTime are illegal.
    - volta83 5y ago
      One of the main GCC rs devs wrote, I quote (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28366445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28366445): > And if you disagree with the unilateral decisions of the rustc developers? "Go fork it or write your own"? Yeah that's what we're doing. I think that the main value of implementing a new Rust frontend, is discovering issues in the Rust spec. They seem to, however, disagree with some Rust specification issues, and creating an incompatible frontend, not with the intent of making the spec better, but rather just doing something different. They are calling this different thing "Rust", which I believe is a misleading, and unethical thing to do. (Its as if I make my own language, and call it C++). I think this could also be illegal, since Rust is a trademark of the Rust foundation, which if they don't defend, e.g., in cases like these, makes the trademark irrelevant, e.g., allowing corporations to fork Rust, change the language, and still use the Rust name, cause they did not enforce it here. But as mentioned IANAL, my only point is that you probably want to be very careful in most juristictions in the world about using a trademark in this way. Others seem to also believe that finding issues in the Rust spec is one of the most valuable things for Rust that can come out of this project. But the main devs haven't been able to point at issues they have filled about it in Rust upstream (as opposed to other projects like have implemented rust frontends before, like mrustc, rust-analyzer, rustc_codegen_gcc, etc. which have found many bugs and filled many issues that have been fixed, submitted patches, etc.). > I've been reading comments in this thread and i wonder what actual arguments you have against gccrs, I don't have any arguments against gccrs. I've been looking for arguments in favor of gccrs, but was not able to find any. Most arguments mentioned here are incorrect, e.g., gcc-rs being necessary to get rustc access to more targets (incorrect since rustc_codegen_gcc is a thing), gcc-rs resulting in Rust spec improvements (incorrect since they aren't filling any bugs / helping in improving the spec), etc. If you have an argument in favor of gccrs, please go ahead, I am all ears.
      - steveklabnik 5y ago
        Is that person a gcc-rs dev? I didn't think that was true. One argument in favor of gcc-rs is related to bootstrapping; right now you need both a previous Rust compiler, as well as a C compiler, to compile Rust. With gcc-rs, you need only gcc. I don't personally think that the bootstrapping situation is onerous, but there are some folks who are looking forward to that.

Subsentient 5y ago

And if you disagree with the unilateral decisions of the rustc developers? "Go fork it or write your own"? Yeah that's what we're doing. Don't be surprised when what was often a taunt in Rust-related arguments actually ends up happening. :^P

volta83 5y ago
> if you disagree with the unilateral decisions of the rustc developers? "Go fork it or write your own"? Yeah that's what we're doing If that's what you want to do, that's great. If you experiment with new stuff, and it pans out, Rust itself might benefit from that. Since your goal is implementing something that differs from "Rust", calling it "Rust", is misleading at best, I think is unethical, and given the intent, probably illegal in most of the world since "Rust" is a registered trademark... (IANAL but if you were implementing a frontend for Rust, you could maybe use it, but for an intentionally different language, doesn't sound like it)
- southerntofu 5y ago
  I've been reading comments in this thread and i wonder what actual arguments you have against gccrs, if you have links to more detailed resources. As a Rust user, i'm happy people are working on alternative implementations so specs can get new eyes. > implementing something that differs from "Rust" (...) I think is unethical, and given the intent, probably illegal I don't understand this statement. One of the contributors said earlier in the thread something that sounds opposed to your interpretation: > For inconsistencies, we have stated in our FAQ that if GCC rust does not behave the same as rustc. Then it is a bug with GCC rust. Also, "your code is illegal" is not very much an ethics argument in my book. Digital weaponry like mass-surveillance systems are mostly legal, while harmless ThePirateBay/PopcornTime are illegal.
  - volta83 5y ago
    One of the main GCC rs devs wrote, I quote (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28366445 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28366445): > And if you disagree with the unilateral decisions of the rustc developers? "Go fork it or write your own"? Yeah that's what we're doing. I think that the main value of implementing a new Rust frontend, is discovering issues in the Rust spec. They seem to, however, disagree with some Rust specification issues, and creating an incompatible frontend, not with the intent of making the spec better, but rather just doing something different. They are calling this different thing "Rust", which I believe is a misleading, and unethical thing to do. (Its as if I make my own language, and call it C++). I think this could also be illegal, since Rust is a trademark of the Rust foundation, which if they don't defend, e.g., in cases like these, makes the trademark irrelevant, e.g., allowing corporations to fork Rust, change the language, and still use the Rust name, cause they did not enforce it here. But as mentioned IANAL, my only point is that you probably want to be very careful in most juristictions in the world about using a trademark in this way. Others seem to also believe that finding issues in the Rust spec is one of the most valuable things for Rust that can come out of this project. But the main devs haven't been able to point at issues they have filled about it in Rust upstream (as opposed to other projects like have implemented rust frontends before, like mrustc, rust-analyzer, rustc_codegen_gcc, etc. which have found many bugs and filled many issues that have been fixed, submitted patches, etc.). > I've been reading comments in this thread and i wonder what actual arguments you have against gccrs, I don't have any arguments against gccrs. I've been looking for arguments in favor of gccrs, but was not able to find any. Most arguments mentioned here are incorrect, e.g., gcc-rs being necessary to get rustc access to more targets (incorrect since rustc_codegen_gcc is a thing), gcc-rs resulting in Rust spec improvements (incorrect since they aren't filling any bugs / helping in improving the spec), etc. If you have an argument in favor of gccrs, please go ahead, I am all ears.
    - steveklabnik 5y ago
      Is that person a gcc-rs dev? I didn't think that was true. One argument in favor of gcc-rs is related to bootstrapping; right now you need both a previous Rust compiler, as well as a C compiler, to compile Rust. With gcc-rs, you need only gcc. I don't personally think that the bootstrapping situation is onerous, but there are some folks who are looking forward to that.