4 ms·
I can understand every aversion to Amazon having control over Rust. But looking at these principles: * “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.” * “Performant: Id
by 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 agoThe 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 agoYes, 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 agoHonestly, 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.
- dochtman 5y agoI for one would be interested in a worked example for how you think this could be better, maybe as part of the internals thread? https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/blog-post-rustacean-principles/15300/8 https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/blog-post-rustacean-princi...
- lolllllll 5y agoSteve's boss to the rescue, another noted SJW twitter personality. Hey Bryan, next time you fund a bunch of criminals to loot and burn down Emeryville - I hope they burn down Oxide Computing as well.
- refenestrator 5y agoSure, but is this existential? The CoC has platitudes, too. Why is this some scary takeover?
- goldenkey 5y agoYou need to read below the fold to see the Amazon Leadership Principles (the ones that make Amazon a shitty place to work at): How to Rustacean Be kind and considerate Bring joy to the user Show up Recognize others’ knowledge Start somewhere Follow through Pay it forward Trust and delegate
- otikik 5y agoThe interesting part is what's missing. There is no mention of "Openness" or "Community", for example.