3 ms·

I see. > The proposed policy, which is clearly political in nature, has resulted in our firm decision not to adopt the crab language for our projects. Although

I see. > The proposed policy, which is clearly political in nature, has resulted in our firm decision not to adopt the crab language for our projects. Although Rust™ offers valuable features, introducing politics into the equation was both unnecessary and has caused a rift that may prove difficult to mend. That seems like a bad faith argument. You are fighting against something that is just a draft. Besides, using the phrase "crab language" makes your stance even worse. Are you talking about Rust, the official, or the recent fork (https://crablang.org/ https://crablang.org/)? I've seen enough. You are not evaluating Rust by its merits, but by its affiliations.

infamouscow 3y ago
But the trademark policy and how it's weaponized to control social behavior through affiliation is entirely crux of the matter. This draft would have passed if there wasn't such a large public outcry. The foundation was completely silent when our VP of engineering expressed concern about the draft and our ability to start using Rust™ for projects. The software firm we work for primarily contracts in red states. Had this draft policy passed, it would have likely resulted in us losing some of our state contracts. I don't think that's good for any language ecosystem, but apparently the HN echo chamber believes we're wrong about this.