5 ms·

Could you elaborate what "published language standard" exactly mean and what it would help for?

testdelacc1 1y ago
I can’t speak for them, but here’s the Rust project’s rationale on writing a spec when they started on it: Our Vision for the Rust Specification (https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-vision/ https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-visio...). I do find it curious that the people who write comments demanding a spec and alternate implementations aren’t aware of the work-in-progress spec and alternate implementations.
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  They are aware. They are also aware that it’s been going nowhere for quite sometimes. Plus it’s still viewed as non authoritative. A non authoritative specification is basically worthless. Actually that might be why it’s going nowhere.
  - testdelacc1 1y ago
    > getting nowhere Would it surprise you to learn that they’re making steady progress, even merging in two PRs two hours ago? https://github.com/rust-lang/reference https://github.com/rust-lang/reference
    - troupo 1y ago
      A sibling comment argues that it's still work that is basically stalled: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44927519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44927519
      - testdelacc1 1y ago
        I saw that. To which I say, git appears to disagree. If you look at the contributor graph for the reference (https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/graphs/contributors https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/graphs/contributors) you’ll find 327 contributions in 2024 H2 and 322 contributions in 2025 H1. That’s the highest and second highest rate of contribution to the repo by some distance. People see what they want to see. They complain no matter what. Remember this thread started with “there’s no spec”, then “the spec work has been abandoned”, then “the spec work isn’t going fast enough”. When they’re moving the goalposts this fast it’s hard to keep up. Especially because, like my other comment says, it’s not clear what they’d actually use the spec for.
        hitekker 1y ago
        The spec is not the reference. That's a fatal misunderstanding of both the initiative and the concepts therein. IMHO, I'm familiar enough with the spec effort to say that the GP and other naysayers are basically right. Despite my hopes, the effort to specify Rust has gone unwell.
        testdelacc1 1y ago
        Is the difference that the reference follows the implementation whereas the implementation would follow the spec if it existed? In that case, I agree that the spec is different from the reference they’re building. To try and understand where you’re coming from, you want the development of Rust to be similar to C++, where a group of people decide the spec and afterwards implementations implement the spec?
        hitekker 1y ago
        You're part of the way there. Think less feature development, more architecture & governance. A language reference is like documentation and a language specification is like a contract. If I uncover behavior in a system that isn’t documented, then I will update the documentation. But if the behavior fails to match the (formal) spec, then the system is at fault for not meeting the expectations of the contract, and the system needs to be corrected. As https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3355#issuecomment-1343908130 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3355#issuecomment-134... states: > If you built a rocket and that rocket crashes, you wouldn't update the spec of the rocket to say "it is expected to crash after reaching 3000m altitude". But if you made a typo that says the rocket should crash after reaching 3000m altitude and somehow passed review, you wouldn't add a self detonation device into the rocket just because of this either. In contexts like safety critical/offline environments, the consequences of unexpected behavior can be dire and hard to fix in the moment (e.g. airplanes in flight). Liability becomes a real concern, and outside parties need a "contract" to be confident certain expectations or behaviors will be met in perpetuity. The reference doesn't offer that guarantee, and has understood itself to be a best-effort technical reference, despite attempts to increase its authoritativeness into a spec https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/issues/629 https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/issues/629 My opinion is that the spec is actually more needed for people inside the language than for people outside. Like the contractual element of a language spec fulfills a constitutional, if not judicial role, in the development process. However, I've learned requires a level of integrity that Rust can no longer hope to achieve.

I can’t speak for them, but here’s the Rust project’s rationale on writing a spec when they started on it: Our Vision for the Rust Specification (https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-vision/ https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-visio...). I do find it curious that the people who write comments demanding a spec and alternate implementations aren’t aware of the work-in-progress spec and alternate implementations.

StopDisinfo910 1y ago
They are aware. They are also aware that it’s been going nowhere for quite sometimes. Plus it’s still viewed as non authoritative. A non authoritative specification is basically worthless. Actually that might be why it’s going nowhere.
- testdelacc1 1y ago
  > getting nowhere Would it surprise you to learn that they’re making steady progress, even merging in two PRs two hours ago? https://github.com/rust-lang/reference https://github.com/rust-lang/reference
  - troupo 1y ago
    A sibling comment argues that it's still work that is basically stalled: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44927519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44927519
    - testdelacc1 1y ago
      I saw that. To which I say, git appears to disagree. If you look at the contributor graph for the reference (https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/graphs/contributors https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/graphs/contributors) you’ll find 327 contributions in 2024 H2 and 322 contributions in 2025 H1. That’s the highest and second highest rate of contribution to the repo by some distance. People see what they want to see. They complain no matter what. Remember this thread started with “there’s no spec”, then “the spec work has been abandoned”, then “the spec work isn’t going fast enough”. When they’re moving the goalposts this fast it’s hard to keep up. Especially because, like my other comment says, it’s not clear what they’d actually use the spec for.
      - hitekker 1y ago
        The spec is not the reference. That's a fatal misunderstanding of both the initiative and the concepts therein. IMHO, I'm familiar enough with the spec effort to say that the GP and other naysayers are basically right. Despite my hopes, the effort to specify Rust has gone unwell.
        testdelacc1 1y ago
        Is the difference that the reference follows the implementation whereas the implementation would follow the spec if it existed? In that case, I agree that the spec is different from the reference they’re building. To try and understand where you’re coming from, you want the development of Rust to be similar to C++, where a group of people decide the spec and afterwards implementations implement the spec?
        hitekker 1y ago
        You're part of the way there. Think less feature development, more architecture & governance. A language reference is like documentation and a language specification is like a contract. If I uncover behavior in a system that isn’t documented, then I will update the documentation. But if the behavior fails to match the (formal) spec, then the system is at fault for not meeting the expectations of the contract, and the system needs to be corrected. As https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3355#issuecomment-1343908130 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3355#issuecomment-134... states: > If you built a rocket and that rocket crashes, you wouldn't update the spec of the rocket to say "it is expected to crash after reaching 3000m altitude". But if you made a typo that says the rocket should crash after reaching 3000m altitude and somehow passed review, you wouldn't add a self detonation device into the rocket just because of this either. In contexts like safety critical/offline environments, the consequences of unexpected behavior can be dire and hard to fix in the moment (e.g. airplanes in flight). Liability becomes a real concern, and outside parties need a "contract" to be confident certain expectations or behaviors will be met in perpetuity. The reference doesn't offer that guarantee, and has understood itself to be a best-effort technical reference, despite attempts to increase its authoritativeness into a spec https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/issues/629 https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/issues/629 My opinion is that the spec is actually more needed for people inside the language than for people outside. Like the contractual element of a language spec fulfills a constitutional, if not judicial role, in the development process. However, I've learned requires a level of integrity that Rust can no longer hope to achieve.