4 ms·

Mara’s blog post (your first link) says essentially that Rust does not need a standard since it already has means for adding features and maintaining compatibil

Mara’s blog post (your first link) says essentially that Rust does not need a standard since it already has means for adding features and maintaining compatibility.

thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
Mara's blog post also describes the benefits of standardizing Rust. Since she created the RFC for standardizing Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3355 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3355) and is also on the team that is working on Rust standardization (https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-vision.html https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-visio...), I think she was making the point that Rust has good controls in place for adding features while compatibility, not that "Rust does not need a standard". If she really believed that Rust does not need a standard, why would she create the RFC and join the team working on the effort? Rust is a great language. There is no reason why it should not have a standard to better formalize its requirements and behaviors.
- faitswulff 3y ago
  Yes, it’s a nuanced blog post. But that also means it doesn’t coming out swinging hard for needing a standard, either. It seems like there is as strong an argument to be made that “Rust is a great language. There is no reason why it needs a standard.” See the Ferrocene compiler which has been qualified for ISO standards. It’s essentially a standard Rust 1.68 compiler with a lot of added documentation. If you need a Rust compiler for safety critical environments, it’s reasonably priced and requires essentially zero changes to the Rust compiler that they didn’t just upstream. Without a standard. Yes, it would be nice to have a standard for reducing ambiguity. But does the language need a standard? And if so, then for what purpose?
  - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
    They created a specification for Ferrocene because Rust does not yet have a language standard: https://spec.ferrocene.dev/ https://spec.ferrocene.dev/ >> But does the language need a standard? Yes, Rust needs a standard. >> And if so, then for what purpose? For the same purpose that all standards have--to formally define it in writing. Ferrocene's web site (https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/ https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/) shows that it meets the ISO 26262 standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_26262 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_26262). Why does ISO 26262 matter? What purpose does it serve? Couldn't a vehicle manufacturer just say "our vehicles are safe"? Which would you trust more: a vehicle that is verified to meet ISO 26262 standards, or a vehicle whose manufacturer tells you "it's safe" without formally defining what "safe" means? I stated it above, but I will re-state it here: Without a language standard, there are many organizations and industries that will not use Rust. Not because Rust is not a fantastic tool for the job, but because laws, regulations, etc. require standardization and qualification of components. This means that I can use a qualified C compiler and toolchain to write safety-critical code, but I can't use Rust despite the fact that Rust is a better choice and will help to prevent problems. Standards do matter. Rust needs a language standard.
    - faitswulff 3y ago
      > For the same purpose that all standards have--to formally define it in writing. This is tautological. It's equivalent to saying "it needs a standard to be written because it needs a written standard." I mean what use case is there for Rust language users that isn't already met by the Ferrocene project? And the Ferrocene project is not a standard as in "other implementations will be found lacking," but a description of the 1.68 compiler as-is. That is a specification, not a standard. Ferrous Systems did not need Rust to have a standard in order to qualify the compiler for ISO 26262 and IEC 61508.
      - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
        >> "it needs a standard to be written because it needs a written standard." Yes. And if the law in your country requires it to be standardized for specific use cases, then a language standard is needed. >> what use case is there for Rust language users that isn't already met by the Ferrocene project? Can you legally use Rust for the control software in aircraft? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178C) What about the safety systems for railroads? (https://ldra.com/ldra-blog/software-safety-and-security-standards-for-gts-and-rail-applications/ https://ldra.com/ldra-blog/software-safety-and-security-stan...) What about the control systems for nuclear reactors? (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1300/ML13007A173.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1300/ML13007A173.pdf)
        faitswulff 3y ago
        And if you need a ISO 26262 qualified Rust compiler, one exists. Hurrah. Since you edited your post…simply having a standard won’t immediately qualify the language for those industries. There is only a tenuous link between having a standard and qualifying the language for industrial use.
        thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
        >> simply having a standard won’t immediately qualify the language for those industries. There is only a tenuous link between having a standard and qualifying the language for industrial use. Not having a language standard disqualifies Rust. Administrators say that it shows that Rust is "not serious" and "not ready" for critical work.
- 3836293648 3y ago
  Spec ≠ Standard Rust absolutely does not need a standard. Having a standard is a completely outdated way to design software in the internet era. Having a specification is a great idea and is what most people actually mean.
  - GrumpySloth 3y ago
    What’s the difference?
    - 3836293648 3y ago
      A standard is a way of writing and ratifying a specification. A spec is just a formal document describing the requirements for something, but a standard is when you have large coalition of relevant players accepting the spec as a committee. In this context it's also implied that it's an ISO standard which is extremely slow, rigid and formal and is a downgrade in every way from the current system of anyone who wants to voice their opinion just chiming in on an RFC on github.

Mara’s blog post (your first link) says essentially that Rust does not need a standard since it already has means for adding features and maintaining compatibility.

thesuperbigfrog 3y ago

Mara's blog post also describes the benefits of standardizing Rust. Since she created the RFC for standardizing Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3355 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3355) and is also on the team that is working on Rust standardization (https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-vision.html https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-visio...), I think she was making the point that Rust has good controls in place for adding features while compatibility, not that "Rust does not need a standard". If she really believed that Rust does not need a standard, why would she create the RFC and join the team working on the effort? Rust is a great language. There is no reason why it should not have a standard to better formalize its requirements and behaviors.

faitswulff 3y ago
Yes, it’s a nuanced blog post. But that also means it doesn’t coming out swinging hard for needing a standard, either. It seems like there is as strong an argument to be made that “Rust is a great language. There is no reason why it needs a standard.” See the Ferrocene compiler which has been qualified for ISO standards. It’s essentially a standard Rust 1.68 compiler with a lot of added documentation. If you need a Rust compiler for safety critical environments, it’s reasonably priced and requires essentially zero changes to the Rust compiler that they didn’t just upstream. Without a standard. Yes, it would be nice to have a standard for reducing ambiguity. But does the language need a standard? And if so, then for what purpose?
- thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
  They created a specification for Ferrocene because Rust does not yet have a language standard: https://spec.ferrocene.dev/ https://spec.ferrocene.dev/ >> But does the language need a standard? Yes, Rust needs a standard. >> And if so, then for what purpose? For the same purpose that all standards have--to formally define it in writing. Ferrocene's web site (https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/ https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/) shows that it meets the ISO 26262 standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_26262 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_26262). Why does ISO 26262 matter? What purpose does it serve? Couldn't a vehicle manufacturer just say "our vehicles are safe"? Which would you trust more: a vehicle that is verified to meet ISO 26262 standards, or a vehicle whose manufacturer tells you "it's safe" without formally defining what "safe" means? I stated it above, but I will re-state it here: Without a language standard, there are many organizations and industries that will not use Rust. Not because Rust is not a fantastic tool for the job, but because laws, regulations, etc. require standardization and qualification of components. This means that I can use a qualified C compiler and toolchain to write safety-critical code, but I can't use Rust despite the fact that Rust is a better choice and will help to prevent problems. Standards do matter. Rust needs a language standard.
  - faitswulff 3y ago
    > For the same purpose that all standards have--to formally define it in writing. This is tautological. It's equivalent to saying "it needs a standard to be written because it needs a written standard." I mean what use case is there for Rust language users that isn't already met by the Ferrocene project? And the Ferrocene project is not a standard as in "other implementations will be found lacking," but a description of the 1.68 compiler as-is. That is a specification, not a standard. Ferrous Systems did not need Rust to have a standard in order to qualify the compiler for ISO 26262 and IEC 61508.
    - thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
      >> "it needs a standard to be written because it needs a written standard." Yes. And if the law in your country requires it to be standardized for specific use cases, then a language standard is needed. >> what use case is there for Rust language users that isn't already met by the Ferrocene project? Can you legally use Rust for the control software in aircraft? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DO-178C) What about the safety systems for railroads? (https://ldra.com/ldra-blog/software-safety-and-security-standards-for-gts-and-rail-applications/ https://ldra.com/ldra-blog/software-safety-and-security-stan...) What about the control systems for nuclear reactors? (https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1300/ML13007A173.pdf https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1300/ML13007A173.pdf)
      - faitswulff 3y ago
        And if you need a ISO 26262 qualified Rust compiler, one exists. Hurrah. Since you edited your post…simply having a standard won’t immediately qualify the language for those industries. There is only a tenuous link between having a standard and qualifying the language for industrial use.
        thesuperbigfrog 3y ago
        >> simply having a standard won’t immediately qualify the language for those industries. There is only a tenuous link between having a standard and qualifying the language for industrial use. Not having a language standard disqualifies Rust. Administrators say that it shows that Rust is "not serious" and "not ready" for critical work.
3836293648 3y ago
Spec ≠ Standard Rust absolutely does not need a standard. Having a standard is a completely outdated way to design software in the internet era. Having a specification is a great idea and is what most people actually mean.
- GrumpySloth 3y ago
  What’s the difference?
  - 3836293648 3y ago
    A standard is a way of writing and ratifying a specification. A spec is just a formal document describing the requirements for something, but a standard is when you have large coalition of relevant players accepting the spec as a committee. In this context it's also implied that it's an ISO standard which is extremely slow, rigid and formal and is a downgrade in every way from the current system of anyone who wants to voice their opinion just chiming in on an RFC on github.