Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • What can I say, I agree with the article's concerns. I think rewriting everything into a non-GPL License by large corporations can be viewed as a first step to locking down Linux in a manner as Cell Phones are now.
    by jmclnx
  • There are many problems with the Rust language. None of the things mentioned here are them, though:

    1. The Rust Foundation is a legal entity that owns things like the webhosting for servers and stuff that. Are you going to claim that, e.g., the C++ Foundation makes C++ the purview of nefarious evil corporations simply because all of the C++ members are companies?

    2. I've never really seen the "social momentum" the author talks about. And even though I work in the kind of environment where you'd think people would be eager Rust converts... I'm pretty much the only person at work who tries to do anything in Rust.

    3. "Rewrite-it-in-Rust" memers are viewed negatively by everyone I know, including the actual Rust developers.

    4. There's nothing inherent about GPL versus MIT versus Apache or whatnot for Rust libraries. I think the trend in open source over the past decade or so has been to move away from GPL anyways, and that so many Rust packages are non-GPL is simply because Rust code is mostly newer than the heyday of GPL.

    5. No, it's not "completely possible" that Rust's compiler contains a backdoor. If you want to, you can bootstrap the compiler from the ocaml-based compiler (which involves way too many steps). I think the mrustc compiler is also capable of building the current rustc. It's pure FUD.

    by jcranmer
  • As for the 'rewrite it in Rust' thing...

    Depends on what you are rewriting from.

    C, you have memory issues, but battle-tested code.

    COBOL, you have to hire retiree consultants for $BIG.

    Or, twenty years from now, hire psychics for $BIG to communicate with them.

    I wonder if some of the RIOR is about worry over C being the next generation's COBOL?

    by cranky908canuck
  • I was expecting real problems, like the lack of async Drop.
    by bryanlarsen
  • It's been over 10 years since Rust 1.0 was released, and C programmers still see it as a new fad. Yet, the same article mentions, but fails to connect the dots, that even the large slow-moving corporations bankrolling the foundation have already adopted Rust and are leaving C as fast as they can.

    It's a typical C mindset that rewriting programs creates new bugs, because it takes years to "battle test" and shake bugs out of a C program. In my experience rewrites in Rust uncover latent bugs of C programs when they finally get checked lifetimes, useful type system, enforced error checking, etc.

    by pornel
  • > It’s completely possible that Rust’s compiler contains a backdoor... The only way to compile Rust’s compiler is using a binary package of the previous version released by the Rust Foundation.

    this is interesting but idk if i get it. couldn't you compile it with a different rust implementation like https://github.com/thepowersgang/mrustc

    by rgbrgb
  • > Corporations can’t use code from GPL projects without contributing to them in some way. Once the license is changed to MIT through a Rust rewrite, the project is free to be used for whatever purpose benefits corporations the most.

    Counterpoint: people at corporations who want to contribute to OSS that is GPL licensed often cannot because the legal risks of doing so is too high for many corporations to bear. MIT / Apache licensed software doesn't have this problem. Yes, you might have that software internally forked and used and see that as a net loss, but more often you'll likely find that a company does not want to own their own fork of an open source product and actually contributes back. GPL is friction there, and its supposed benefits seem (at least in my limited experience in 20 something years in the industry) don't seem to outpace this downside. (I put my money where my mouth is on this and release all my OSS as MIT/Apache generally).

    Obviously big things like the Linux kernel or other fundamental tooling this doesn't apply, but for anything smaller the GPL is bad.

    by joshka
  • The first and last points are basically nonsense. The others are valid, more or less.

    (1) The Rust Foundation was very carefully engineered to not have any influence on the technical direction of the language. Yes, corporations are backing it, someone needs to pay the bills. Yes, they expect to benefit from it. It's pretty clear how - they want to ensure Rust, which they heavily rely on, is continued to be developed.

    (2) The Rust compiler does not contain a trusting trust backdoor. It's possible to bootstrap rustc from zero (the original OCaml compiler) or short-circuit with mrustc. This was done and the binaries were identical (yes, not every version was checked). The GCCRS compiler might not be useless, but it is far from being useful enough that the Rust community should shift resources towards it.

    by afdbcreid

Explore Birbla archives