4 ms·

From the very beginning Rust was a political movement first, and a programming lang second. People seemed to have forgotten some of the early events from years

From the very beginning Rust was a political movement first, and a programming lang second. People seemed to have forgotten some of the early events from years ago when Rust was less popular. >>The Rust project needs to stamp this out before it begins to fester It has been there since the formation of the Lang, it is built into the DNA of the community. people that want technical merits to shine are the ones trying to change the community, not the other way round

jrsj 3y ago
And of course now that the people who wrote the CoC aren’t even following it we know that was really just a political tool
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - nullc 3y ago
    You don't normally needs a CoC to do the right thing, you need a CoC to justify doing the wrong thing.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- moomoo11 3y ago
  Everyone knows those are a childish tool used by bully nerds to wield power over others with this fake better than thou outlook on things that have nothing to do with programming or the computer. Like seriously I’m on a computer remotely discussing tech with people. I don’t personally care about who the other person is or does beyond their contribution to the repo and topic at hand. Beyond that, to weaponize decent behavior as a tool to do additional things, is not right. Sorry but when can we stop taking “developer advocate” type people seriously? They’re usually not devs or technical (at least in my own experience), and add all these side things which make no sense except in political organizations.
riskable 3y ago
No, no. Groups that have endless infighting/debates are the ones that evolve, stick around, and gain support. It's the groups that are cock-sure about everything with everyone falling in line behind the leadership that end up stagnating and ultimately end up being replaced with something better (often with bitter or explosive endings). In the world of technology, fundamental tech like programming languages can persist seemingly forever but the truth is that there's great big winners and a whole lot of losers. We also don't like to compare seemingly-unrelated languages to each other because of their fundamental differences in how they're meant to be used but the truth is that a lot more people know and learn Python than will ever learn C or C++ (or Rust). It's because C and C++ never really evolved into better languages. They never got rid of the bad ideas (e.g. goto) and just kept piling on new stuff, leaving new learners of the language just that much more to have to learn. Languages like Rust and Python actually remove old, bad syntaxes/ideas and implement checks and helpful compiler messages regarding bad patterns. IMHO, this makes them vastly more likely to be around 25, 50, or even 100 years from now than languages (or OSes) that never remove technological debt.
- overgard 3y ago
  Python removing "bad" old ideas caused it to stagnate on 2.7 for a decade and probably did irreversible harm to the ecosystem as people left for languages that didn't have a nasty split in the community. C++ has evolved tremendously so I have no idea what you're talking about there. Removing "goto" would help nothing, and the more or less deprecated features keep old codebases alive while allowing for better things (shared pointers and so on)
- notmypenguin 3y ago
  No mention of the fact that you cherry picked virtual machine languages, dynamic interpreted languages that don’t even exist without a garbage collector, a system memory allocator, and more, all written in C,C++, or Rust?
Mimmy 3y ago
Rust was a political movement first? Can you elaborate?
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  In many ways it is a "you had to be there" type of thing... If you were around the internet when Rust was first being formed at Mozilla, understanding the history there and the transition of Mozilla from a pure tech company to a political organization is part of the story as well I will say my first introduction to Rust was not as a programming lang, but was one of the many many many posts around the internet at the time where the founder and other core members were defending their CoC, and talking about how they were more focus on the "behavior" of developers than on the code, or technical merits of programming. Rust has always been more about about controlling human behaviors (i.e politics) than it about controlling computers.

jrsj 3y ago

And of course now that the people who wrote the CoC aren’t even following it we know that was really just a political tool

phpisthebest 3y ago
[flagged]
- nullc 3y ago
  You don't normally needs a CoC to do the right thing, you need a CoC to justify doing the wrong thing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
moomoo11 3y ago
Everyone knows those are a childish tool used by bully nerds to wield power over others with this fake better than thou outlook on things that have nothing to do with programming or the computer. Like seriously I’m on a computer remotely discussing tech with people. I don’t personally care about who the other person is or does beyond their contribution to the repo and topic at hand. Beyond that, to weaponize decent behavior as a tool to do additional things, is not right. Sorry but when can we stop taking “developer advocate” type people seriously? They’re usually not devs or technical (at least in my own experience), and add all these side things which make no sense except in political organizations.

riskable 3y ago

No, no. Groups that have endless infighting/debates are the ones that evolve, stick around, and gain support. It's the groups that are cock-sure about everything with everyone falling in line behind the leadership that end up stagnating and ultimately end up being replaced with something better (often with bitter or explosive endings). In the world of technology, fundamental tech like programming languages can persist seemingly forever but the truth is that there's great big winners and a whole lot of losers. We also don't like to compare seemingly-unrelated languages to each other because of their fundamental differences in how they're meant to be used but the truth is that a lot more people know and learn Python than will ever learn C or C++ (or Rust). It's because C and C++ never really evolved into better languages. They never got rid of the bad ideas (e.g. goto) and just kept piling on new stuff, leaving new learners of the language just that much more to have to learn. Languages like Rust and Python actually remove old, bad syntaxes/ideas and implement checks and helpful compiler messages regarding bad patterns. IMHO, this makes them vastly more likely to be around 25, 50, or even 100 years from now than languages (or OSes) that never remove technological debt.

overgard 3y ago
Python removing "bad" old ideas caused it to stagnate on 2.7 for a decade and probably did irreversible harm to the ecosystem as people left for languages that didn't have a nasty split in the community. C++ has evolved tremendously so I have no idea what you're talking about there. Removing "goto" would help nothing, and the more or less deprecated features keep old codebases alive while allowing for better things (shared pointers and so on)
notmypenguin 3y ago
No mention of the fact that you cherry picked virtual machine languages, dynamic interpreted languages that don’t even exist without a garbage collector, a system memory allocator, and more, all written in C,C++, or Rust?

Mimmy 3y ago

Rust was a political movement first? Can you elaborate?

phpisthebest 3y ago
In many ways it is a "you had to be there" type of thing... If you were around the internet when Rust was first being formed at Mozilla, understanding the history there and the transition of Mozilla from a pure tech company to a political organization is part of the story as well I will say my first introduction to Rust was not as a programming lang, but was one of the many many many posts around the internet at the time where the founder and other core members were defending their CoC, and talking about how they were more focus on the "behavior" of developers than on the code, or technical merits of programming. Rust has always been more about about controlling human behaviors (i.e politics) than it about controlling computers.