Whenever you interact with a position of authority when they wish to have more power, keep one thing in mind: You may trust that person (or that group of people), but you have absolutely no idea if you can trust their successors. So really think about if they REALLY need that power, who supervises them that they use it properly and as intended, what the measures are to remove them from their position again (if needed against their will), how do they even get into the position and with all of that in mind if you are ok with it.
The best power is no power, the best process is no process, the best structure is no structure, the best code is no code. If you introduce structure where its not needed then it can only make things worse or at best the same.
@@adamih96 well, there are places where structure is needed, but it should obviously be as little as needed (e.g. I quite frankly don't want to live under Anarchy) and that's also why imo why a language shouldn't have one community behind it seriously, programming languages are tools not communities
@@kuhluhOGWhat i mean is that there is inherit value in simplicity, not that anarchy and primitivism is better than structure and governance in every single situation. If they provided clear value and if there were a clear need for it then we all would put up with at least some of this drama. Clearly there is not.
@@adamih96 If what you said was true and not an instance of being oversimplistic, e.g. the entire field of maths is all about discovering new structures that "aren't needed" (until they are, e.g. number theory in cryptography, which is the reason your sensitive information is not being stolen right now). These cute sayings people enjoy making need to be descriptive of reality at some point. The best x is **simple** x, not *no* x. Even simplicity requires that you think from a structuralist point of view, because you have to have already known what not to include in that moment and what to include. (simple != easy) You make it seem like structure and simplicity are diametric opposites.
Wishful thinking. If library devs, conference makers, tool makers.. have to be careful about the way Rust is handled, then it will make the language and its libraries stagnate, which is the death of the language. It's bad for everyone INCLUDING newcomers. Also, do you think IDEs would somehow be immune to legal drama? What if the Rust Foundation goes after LSP, extensions, etc?
I get your point on this stuff not being a reason to STOP learning Rust, but I think it's a pretty good reason to never START learning Rust in the first place. That's basically where I am, looked at Rust for like 5 days, catching wind of more and more foul smells in the leadership the whole time until I decided not to bother.
so i have made a hard turn to ocaml ocaml was rust's original inspiration and as i have started using it, its already become apparent that it has some really amazing properties
I get that, people who are simply using rust to build software need not be worried about all this drama. But I think the drama will certainly affect the core community folks who put so much of their time to build great crates for Rust. If they feel disenfranchised and slowdown / stop development or is prevented from uploading crates because the Rust foundation doesn’t like them for whatsoever reason, then that is a concern for people who build with Rust.
As a Scala dev, this crap really had a negative impact on the language. There were the pure Functionalists who built a bunch of quasi-Haskell libraries and then they had a split between themselves. Then there were the Java++ guys who went off and did scalatra and Lift. Prior to thst you had Twitter who wrote their own Futures impl and built a whole bunch of stuff on top of that. Then Akka and the actor odel came along and all was well for a while till they changed their licensing. ZIO happened and that was somewhere between the FP and Akka crowd. Scala3 was a huge shift again. So now for everything: REST, JSON serde etc you have 6-7 libraries with 10-20 contributors, and no Enterprise wants touch the language with a ten foot barge pole
The continued drama makes it less enjoyable to really get into the language. When I was younger, I had this awesome super intelligent friend whose home life was a shit show. I wanted hang out with him all the time and do fun, cool stuff but the thought of going to his house made it ... complicated.
It’s not drama lol it’s an RFC I honestly don’t know why people are making it a drama it’s a location for discussions and suggestions if people don’t like the phrasing of things suggest alternatives
@@cchancebecause some of the language in proposals to crates and TRF is concerning. Some individuals in The Foundation have shown a political bent to how they participate in the language’s governance. It discourages communal activities because some of the leadership is so inclined.
You can say this shouldn't affect us learning the language but unfortunately that's not how it works. I was learning it because I was excited about it, stuff like this makes me less excited about the project and more concerned about its future. So this kinda stuff inherently affects my motivation to learn it, I used to be skeptical about GO being controlled by Google and potentially introducing telemetry but now I'm back to using it because the core Rust team made me not trust them even more, pushing politics into a language, ignoring leadership structures to exercise power based on personal beef with someone (the rustconf fiasco), to the point where actual good team members end up quitting to protest this nonsense. I just can't get behind it and it makes me lose all excitement required to keep learning and using the language.
You'll find stuff like this in any language that got big enough for it to "need" some governance. Best bet is to just don't spend energy looking into it, and just learning stuff because you love to learn it. Whether a language goes places or not is hard to predict anyway. If something makes you better at your craft, why not invest time in it? If you make sure the skills gained are transferable, there's nothing really lost. How many frameworks/languages/... did you already learn in your lifetime, and after x time you didn't use it anymore and got into something else for whatever reason? Exactly the same here.
You should have a look back at the drama in the C++ oversight committee. In the long run the capabilities of the language are by far the most important factor.
@@edinalewis4704 exactly. For most people, this stuff isn't even on their radar, and they're just building their skills. In the long run, this is just a minor hiccup
So many people get right next to the solution and then never make that last tiny step. Situational cognitive blindness looks so crazy from the outside.
8:20 "Yank" basically doesn't do anything. Cargo just doesn't use yanked versions automatically. If you put it in the cargo lock file manually, it can still be used.
bro when your interim director publicly says "kill all men" and "fuck you not sorry" when called out on saying "kill all men" and your Organization bends over backwards to delete comments and censor people talking about it, I think just about anyone would look angelic by comparison.
Good clip in the beginning. I had that exact question, particularly not knowing the relationship between the language and the R*st Foundation™. This comment is not associated with the Rust Foundation.
Quite frankly, having one community around a language (pretty much like Rust) instead of many different communities which "just" happen to use the same programming language (like e.g. C++, although it's developing more and more into the direction of Rust in this aspect in the last few years) is imo more of a disadvantage for a programming language. Not only do you get way more diverse opinions with the latter approach while it gets developed, you also prevent monocultures, project ruining power grabs and resilience against bad people (and it doesn't matter if the are in leading positions or just happen to be well known).
I don't think you've thought this through. C++ has been designed by committee for almost 4 decades. So are almost every single language ever made. And languages like Zig, etc are extremely much like so, since you essentially have dictators. That being said, design by committee isn't bad. Things don't take off unless a LOT of work is spent on design.
@@simonfarre4907 yes, C++ is designed by committee a committee which consists of many communities coming together which happen that C++ is their main tool there are game, HPC, medical, embedded (with both, soft and hard real time requirements) and many more development communities neither of these use C++ because it's C++ they use C++ because it's the (currently) best tool for their job (well, mostly) and they try to improve the language for their purpose because they know that things can always be improved that's the big difference here sure, there are people in the Rust community who think like that too, but these are few compared to the people who use and push Rust for the sake of it being Rust
My short term solution would be to disallow crate names that don't contain a dash, or alternatively block crate names that appear in the dictionary. I don't think single-word crates like "response", "gen", "codec", "pair", "reconnect", "poll", "automation", "machines" or "sched" should be up for grabs in a first-come-first-serve way. They represent such major concepts that it should not be left to whoever grabs them first to decide which code gets to be distributed under that name. The same should apply to general namespaces like "async-", "http-" or "tracing-". They are way too broad to be reserved by a single individual.
That’s an interesting idea. Plenty of single words aren’t that significant as far as representing features or functionality, even if they appear in the dictionary, so I don’t know that that’s the best approach, though.
"Doctor, it hurts when I go like *this*" "Interesting, can you do it again please?" Summary of Rust Foundational stupidity and this never ending drama... No shot they don't go "just don't do that then dummy".
You know about 10mins in I had the idea of a forum hosted using crates then damn to find out it's already been done as a blog at 28.00 - truly inspirational, tom would be proud
I spoke at the boston C++ conference a few times. last time, my zipper was all the way down, and no one cared. You do that in a rust conference, every furry and freak will get pissed and explode.
the rust foundation poisoning the rust ecosystem with drama is a massive risk for simple users. It will kill the popular libraries or future popular libraries.
a comment: "How can Rust be serious if it's not OOP.". Lol. OOP is mostly mistakes. OOP didn't foresee concurrency. Most OOP languages are a mosh pit of many threads mutating a struct. Locks don't compose; so it's not quite right. This is backwards. Erlang is a million single-threaded processes consuming immutable messages on their own thread; the only real "encapsulation".
Most of the violations list seems like it is already covered in the original version, and could be covered by instead linking out to an FAQ of things that have been judged to not be acceptable in prior "case law".
The thing with Rust is that one of its major value propositions is the ability to make software that stands the test of time. A package doesn't need to be "maintained" if it already has the functionality that it needs.
I think that's covered in here. Most probably if the author (not someone who wants to fork and add more features) states that the package is complete/correct, it shouldn't be a problem.
@melonhusk562If a crate has a narrow focus, it's quite possible to do that. And many crates do. Only the big ones you're thinking of, massive libraries or whole frameworks, can be said to be incapable of being "finished".
One advantage of Java is that, because it is so plain and corporate, there is practically no drama surrounding it. Any disputes that come up within Oracle are probably worded so passively and plainly, that the outside onlooker probably wouldn't even recognize it as a real dispute.
So now the optimal way to name squat would be to make a "legit" crate depend on all your "reserved" ones. You could even spread some of the legit crate's code over to the reserved ones until you need them. So it would be really hard for the mods to determine if a crate is reserved or not. And they can't take it without causing a left-pad situation (especially if the legit crate is widely used).
I don't buy the whole "you can't trust people who edit comments" either. The link contained information on how to spam. That's exactly the kind of stuff that they said they don't want to host on the platform, so why should they allow it in a discussion. Plus, it didn't provide anything of value to the discussion. I don't think anyone needs concrete evidence that ChatGPT is capable of generating garbage code with minimum effort.
I agree rfcs are where we should have drama it’s passionate discourse in the location where we want it lol. It’s not like they rolled it out and didn’t do an rfc
Drama gets clicks, and the few 100 loudest screechers flock around to convince eachother there's actually something of substance here. Rats in a bucket.
Thanks for this overview of how Rust drama affects people. I've never enjoyed a programming language as much as Rust. It's so freeing to have the language take a good portion of the burden of things you have to keep in the back of your mind in C++ and put it into language features and the compiler. I think the foundation issues will affect non-content creators, though, since there's no denying that there's a fairly steep learning curve to it. And to get over that you need not just one voice, but a variety of voices to allow people to have a choice of which tutorial creator matches with their learning style. An example of this is Vim. I tried to get into Vim many times but the tutorial videos never really clicked until I came across yours. I think it was because it gave a method for slowly expanding my knowledge of Vim over time that was missing from tutorials that were more of a disjointed series of videos on individual topics. Had Vim cracked down on content creators like the Rust Foundation, those videos may never have been made and I'd still be using stock mouse+arrow keys vscode for programming.
@ThePrimeTime The problem is the fact that this video even needed to be made. That's the problem. They are running people away from an amazing piece of technology.
I’m 40 mins in what did they do that’s so bad lol? I think this proves that rust is for low iq idiots because they criticize the foundation over nothing.
This feels kind of like the argument about C++'s complexity being beyond peoples ability to deal with. Sure, if you live in the vacuum of space, just you and a c++ compiler, you never have to deal with that complexity if you don't want to. Pick a subset of the language that isn't too complex and just use that. Just don't ever take contributions from other people who use the tool and don't depend on anything either, since the API might be tainted with extra-subset c++ concepts. Similarly, in Rust, if you don't need to collaborate with anyone (who you are most likely to find in the community, and is most likely aligned with it even if you don't), you don't have to care about the community. You can just carve out a little isolated mini-community of your own in the vacuum of space, and protect the airlock with your own anti-community gustapomen so that you don't catch a case of community leakage. Alternatively, you can stop trading wet turds for dry turds, and just use a different tool.
When I was learning Rust everyone touted “Rust has an amazing friendly community”. That might still be true, but this stuff definitely tarnishes that idea.
With the namesquatting bulletpoint, you read the conditions as "and" instead of "or". Harpoon would be fine because it has specific functionality or purpose, even if it doesnt have significant dev activity
I also think that maybe ... maybe you sometimes need to make a hard choice. Some people will not be happy, but you will still retain the majority and then be happily after.
god damn, not able to delete crates is so important. in android community, maven project can just gone with the wind, ive had to upgrade my library 2 version up because the old version is gone from the repository, and thats like 6months ago, wth!
Seems weird that their name-squatting example is someone as prolific as the creator of Tokio, rather than an ACTUAL name-squatting account that hasn't made _any_ worthwhile packages. The rules are reasonable, seems like the discussion has just devolved into people talking past each other for no reason. Also they should add namespaces.
No, Carl Lerche is exactly the right person to discuss this with. He's one of the most prolific contributors to the rust ecosystem, so we know he's not a malicious actor. He also holds a lot of unused crate names. Above all else, you want people like him to not be hurt by new policy. That's why he's the perfect example. If you base the discussion on a clearly malicious account, then any set of rules that gets rid of them is acceptable.
You can't take the drama out of people. Best to resolve the issues quickly and with as little fuss as possible. Philosophically, there may be actual value in drama like this; at then end of the day it's somehow related to finding and optimizing the process by which the community as a whole is able to work to create a better rust. It might turn toxic, but is simply suppressing or ignoring these drama's better? I'm sure there is a case to be made that this _form_ of drama isn't the most productive; that's for sure.
@@MoireFly it could also just as well be an overextension of a handful of large egos sabotaging a collective effort. better not to give bad actors the benefit of the doubt.
Unlikely many of the people who contribute significantly are also those involved in the drama. Core developers rarely have time for drama... let alone real lives. ;-)
@@arthurpenndragon6434no no, Ashley "kill all men" "fuck you not sorry" Williams had some value to add to the conversation. After all, it optimized the process by which the community as a whole was able to work together to create a better Rust. Unfortunately the Rust Foundation was not a part of that community, but the community did reach a *_very_* simple conclusion on how Rust could be improved.
energy vampires will just follow and harass you. No chance as long as they can still rope you in with something. You have to leave the language entirely and any flying monkeys
Personally, the fact that there is even that slight, non-zero probability risk and caveat that I would get levelled and completely desroyed by just using their product - the programming language - really makes my stomache tingle and is in my books, unacceptable
I genuinely do not know if I can bring myself to use a product who hates its users and hates its community more than their love for trademark and control
C/C++ in their almost what, 50 years (?) Of existence, never had such bullshit before, rust are basically single handedly deprecating themselves into obscuring the more they do this
Now of course, to be fair, obviously if it is malware, copyright, trademark by other companies with a registered keyword of the above, they are free to take it down But in the general idea, the above statements are worrying
One of the worst ideas ever to not support package namespaces from the start. If they had that, then the rust foundation wouldn't even have to care if people used rust in their project name, since they could just take the rust namespace and nobody would have cared.
I don't see how OCaml can at all threaten anything. Since its initial release in 1996 they've not exactly managed to pick up that big a market share outside of academia. I've used it a lot at university. A lot of my peers have used it a lot at university. You'd think that the experience of all computer scientists coming out of the biggest university in the country would make OCaml fairly common in industry around here, right? It's not at all though.
Pancake Shop Policy is to not serve pancakes to anyone who thinks in their mind-brain that Joenald Brumpden didn't lose/win the electrion fairly/cheatily. These policies are nonsensical scope creep. If you host packages, just host packages -- don't create a policy so complex it takes a team of attorneys, investigative journalists, and philosophers to implement. Yikes.
That 2% is LOUD though. And anyone learning Rust has to wade through it. Here's my take. If you have a lake, but in order to drink from it you have to ignore that 2% sewage you see across from you, you can't really call it pristine, and you certainly wouldn't want to drink from it, right? Rust is a language, it literally changes how you think about things. Do you really want those people to have any type of access to that?
30:00 I feel like primes point is valid here (though I'd hope that should be fixable with a better wording) But a bit later when TJ says "Well what if you just thought of a sweet name and save it for later." I'd say that is literally what name squatting is...??? I don't know. What name could possibly be so unique to muddle the waters and make it harder to decide whether it's "just saving a nice name" or whether it is squatted to make it unavailable to others?! IMO: if there were changes. If there actually IS a package.. it should not be taken down or given to someone because that goes directly against the "do not delete anything" thought. You would not be able to really trust that newer versions of a package are actually a continuation (though you should version pin anyways... but the point remains) But if it is just an empty package (maybe including an unchanged fork) I could see a case for removing it
How and who exactly determines if information is false, inaccurate or intentionally deceptive? I think they are diving into mirky waters right there. And are we still talking about rust packages here??
The depicts or glorifies violence may sound like a no brainer, but what about violent video games? Are those exempt (doesn't say it) or is that not seen as glorifying violence or are violent games simply not allowed on crates?
I bet the new accountability laws are pressing at least some of these changes. They are distancing themselves from people. They dont wantto be the source thats charged.
Why? Pleeeeaseee! Don’t pretend that you are not aware of the dysfunctional bunch that control Rust! Give me a break! It’s a real problem and we can’t keep ignoring it.
What I'd like to have is OTPs for publishing crates. Even npm has that. As is anyone who get access to my HDD can publish crates under my name, because the only authentication is from a plain text file in my home dir.
Candidly, I see no issue in the policy. There are clauses that are redundant, but not contradictory. And namespacing is completely orthogonal as mentioned. It may mitigate the number, but the problem statement is the same even if there are namespaces. I'm no Stan. They goofed on the conference talk and not a good look on the naming policy, but this is not nearly the same level of "drama".
@ThePrimeTimeagen you are either mistaken, or simply not understanding my statement. Maybe I was unclear. The questions "Who determines who can have foo and who can have bar?" and "Who can have foo/x and who can have bar/x?" are the same question. And although it diminishes the issue, it doesn't fundamentally change it. So it doesn't change if namesquating is or isn't an issue. Whether namespacing is implemented or not, there is still a separate question. Namely, how to deal with squatting.
@@ThePrimeTimeagen the link *did* give instructions how to spam the platform, so I can see why you would want to remove it. I don't think anyone needs concrete evidence that ChatGPT is capable of generating garbage code.
The proposed RFC isn't necessarily bad or unfair, it's just very vague and unfocused, which leaves room for the Rust Foundation to abuse these amendments in the future. This RFC proposition would be easier to debate and/or get passed if it had more concrete points or a specified methodology (HOW are they monitoring name squatting precisely?).
ah yes, yet another reason to switch to crablang. I wonder if Ashley "kill all men" "fuck you not sorry" Williams had a part in this, eh, I'll probably never know given they delete all the comments calling her out.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Whenever you interact with a position of authority when they wish to have more power, keep one thing in mind: You may trust that person (or that group of people), but you have absolutely no idea if you can trust their successors. So really think about if they REALLY need that power, who supervises them that they use it properly and as intended, what the measures are to remove them from their position again (if needed against their will), how do they even get into the position and with all of that in mind if you are ok with it.
The best power is no power, the best process is no process, the best structure is no structure, the best code is no code. If you introduce structure where its not needed then it can only make things worse or at best the same.
@@adamih96 well, there are places where structure is needed, but it should obviously be as little as needed (e.g. I quite frankly don't want to live under Anarchy)
and that's also why imo why a language shouldn't have one community behind it
seriously, programming languages are tools not communities
@@kuhluhOGWhat i mean is that there is inherit value in simplicity, not that anarchy and primitivism is better than structure and governance in every single situation. If they provided clear value and if there were a clear need for it then we all would put up with at least some of this drama. Clearly there is not.
@@kuhluhOGbig
@@adamih96 If what you said was true and not an instance of being oversimplistic, e.g. the entire field of maths is all about discovering new structures that "aren't needed" (until they are, e.g. number theory in cryptography, which is the reason your sensitive information is not being stolen right now).
These cute sayings people enjoy making need to be descriptive of reality at some point. The best x is **simple** x, not *no* x.
Even simplicity requires that you think from a structuralist point of view, because you have to have already known what not to include in that moment and what to include. (simple != easy)
You make it seem like structure and simplicity are diametric opposites.
Wishful thinking. If library devs, conference makers, tool makers.. have to be careful about the way Rust is handled, then it will make the language and its libraries stagnate, which is the death of the language. It's bad for everyone INCLUDING newcomers.
Also, do you think IDEs would somehow be immune to legal drama? What if the Rust Foundation goes after LSP, extensions, etc?
Yep, this drama keeps me from considering Rust for a serious project. I will look elsewhere.
I get your point on this stuff not being a reason to STOP learning Rust, but I think it's a pretty good reason to never START learning Rust in the first place. That's basically where I am, looked at Rust for like 5 days, catching wind of more and more foul smells in the leadership the whole time until I decided not to bother.
so i have made a hard turn to ocaml
ocaml was rust's original inspiration and as i have started using it, its already become apparent that it has some really amazing properties
@@ThePrimeTimeagenYou replied to a comment using more than 5 words?!?! That's crazy, this must be a really great comment
I get that, people who are simply using rust to build software need not be worried about all this drama. But I think the drama will certainly affect the core community folks who put so much of their time to build great crates for Rust. If they feel disenfranchised and slowdown / stop development or is prevented from uploading crates because the Rust foundation doesn’t like them for whatsoever reason, then that is a concern for people who build with Rust.
As a Scala dev, this crap really had a negative impact on the language. There were the pure Functionalists who built a bunch of quasi-Haskell libraries and then they had a split between themselves. Then there were the Java++ guys who went off and did scalatra and Lift. Prior to thst you had Twitter who wrote their own Futures impl and built a whole bunch of stuff on top of that. Then Akka and the actor odel came along and all was well for a while till they changed their licensing. ZIO happened and that was somewhere between the FP and Akka crowd. Scala3 was a huge shift again. So now for everything: REST, JSON serde etc you have 6-7 libraries with 10-20 contributors, and no Enterprise wants touch the language with a ten foot barge pole
wasn't that due to the fact that the language has so many degrees of freedom, allowing for a huge variety of styles?
@@kevalan1042 yes + it attracted a special kind of crowd prone to drama.
@@stariyczedun but in what way is it similar to what is happening with Rust?
It seems you have not read the proposed terms of use, what you wrote is irrelevant.
@@kevalan1042 I don't think it is similar TBH. Scala ecosystem never had issues with the main governing bodies, only with community infighting.
The continued drama makes it less enjoyable to really get into the language. When I was younger, I had this awesome super intelligent friend whose home life was a shit show. I wanted hang out with him all the time and do fun, cool stuff but the thought of going to his house made it ... complicated.
Honestly, great analogy lol
It’s not drama lol it’s an RFC I honestly don’t know why people are making it a drama it’s a location for discussions and suggestions if people don’t like the phrasing of things suggest alternatives
@@cchance Oh there's drama, baby!
@@cchancebecause some of the language in proposals to crates and TRF is concerning. Some individuals in The Foundation have shown a political bent to how they participate in the language’s governance. It discourages communal activities because some of the leadership is so inclined.
@@TehKarmalizerare you referring to Ashley "kill all men" "fuck you not sorry" Williams or someone else in particular?
You can say this shouldn't affect us learning the language but unfortunately that's not how it works. I was learning it because I was excited about it, stuff like this makes me less excited about the project and more concerned about its future. So this kinda stuff inherently affects my motivation to learn it, I used to be skeptical about GO being controlled by Google and potentially introducing telemetry but now I'm back to using it because the core Rust team made me not trust them even more, pushing politics into a language, ignoring leadership structures to exercise power based on personal beef with someone (the rustconf fiasco), to the point where actual good team members end up quitting to protest this nonsense. I just can't get behind it and it makes me lose all excitement required to keep learning and using the language.
You'll find stuff like this in any language that got big enough for it to "need" some governance. Best bet is to just don't spend energy looking into it, and just learning stuff because you love to learn it. Whether a language goes places or not is hard to predict anyway. If something makes you better at your craft, why not invest time in it? If you make sure the skills gained are transferable, there's nothing really lost. How many frameworks/languages/... did you already learn in your lifetime, and after x time you didn't use it anymore and got into something else for whatever reason? Exactly the same here.
Go, then 😉
100% same as me. I cannot be excited learning something controlled by such a group of people.
You should have a look back at the drama in the C++ oversight committee. In the long run the capabilities of the language are by far the most important factor.
@@edinalewis4704 exactly. For most people, this stuff isn't even on their radar, and they're just building their skills. In the long run, this is just a minor hiccup
So many people get right next to the solution and then never make that last tiny step. Situational cognitive blindness looks so crazy from the outside.
it does, it feels SO WEIRD
8:20 "Yank" basically doesn't do anything. Cargo just doesn't use yanked versions automatically. If you put it in the cargo lock file manually, it can still be used.
With how much drama the Rust community get (mostly because of the Foundation) makes it look like the C++ comitee is a bunch of angels.
I wasn't even aware the C++ committee did anything besides say "yeah sure" for every feature request.
@@zZGzHD LOL
What did the foundation even do??? Ppl just repeat this and can’t answer the question. Maybe rust users are just dumb and hypersensitive
@@curly35To be honest, I'm not sure they do either.
bro when your interim director publicly says "kill all men" and "fuck you not sorry" when called out on saying "kill all men" and your Organization bends over backwards to delete comments and censor people talking about it, I think just about anyone would look angelic by comparison.
The important question here is:
When the CHAD stack will become the norm of web development?
MODERN
going hot stack
@@ThePrimeTimeagencheck out cobol-on-wheelchair, the logical replacement for ruby-on-rails
damn, I literally decided an hour ago to finally learn Rust and I am dropping it.
Ok but what about backend css?
ahaha
Finally someone asking the big questions
Cascading Server Sheets (tm) 😂😂😂
I just know a node.css environment is cooking
Good clip in the beginning. I had that exact question, particularly not knowing the relationship between the language and the R*st Foundation™.
This comment is not associated with the Rust Foundation.
Quite frankly, having one community around a language (pretty much like Rust) instead of many different communities which "just" happen to use the same programming language (like e.g. C++, although it's developing more and more into the direction of Rust in this aspect in the last few years) is imo more of a disadvantage for a programming language. Not only do you get way more diverse opinions with the latter approach while it gets developed, you also prevent monocultures, project ruining power grabs and resilience against bad people (and it doesn't matter if the are in leading positions or just happen to be well known).
Exactly, the Rust people being so controlling and the Rust community being so accepting of this control was and is extremely concerning.
I don't think you've thought this through. C++ has been designed by committee for almost 4 decades.
So are almost every single language ever made. And languages like Zig, etc are extremely much like so, since you essentially have dictators.
That being said, design by committee isn't bad. Things don't take off unless a LOT of work is spent on design.
@@simonfarre4907 yes, C++ is designed by committee
a committee which consists of many communities coming together which happen that C++ is their main tool
there are game, HPC, medical, embedded (with both, soft and hard real time requirements) and many more development communities
neither of these use C++ because it's C++
they use C++ because it's the (currently) best tool for their job (well, mostly) and they try to improve the language for their purpose because they know that things can always be improved
that's the big difference here
sure, there are people in the Rust community who think like that too, but these are few compared to the people who use and push Rust for the sake of it being Rust
A star trek federation of Rust communities basically? It does seem like a good solution to this.
@@monadic_monastic69 I don't know Star Trek enough to comment on this.
When in doubt, swap Rust out.......with Crab lang!
Lobster is a choice too
or SafeLang
Fracturing will just kill the technology
@@T1Oracle Yes. and the foundation should consider that.
or do what i do and stick with C++.
My short term solution would be to disallow crate names that don't contain a dash, or alternatively block crate names that appear in the dictionary. I don't think single-word crates like "response", "gen", "codec", "pair", "reconnect", "poll", "automation", "machines" or "sched" should be up for grabs in a first-come-first-serve way. They represent such major concepts that it should not be left to whoever grabs them first to decide which code gets to be distributed under that name.
The same should apply to general namespaces like "async-", "http-" or "tracing-". They are way too broad to be reserved by a single individual.
not bad
That’s an interesting idea. Plenty of single words aren’t that significant as far as representing features or functionality, even if they appear in the dictionary, so I don’t know that that’s the best approach, though.
"Doctor, it hurts when I go like *this*"
"Interesting, can you do it again please?"
Summary of Rust Foundational stupidity and this never ending drama...
No shot they don't go "just don't do that then dummy".
You know about 10mins in I had the idea of a forum hosted using crates then damn to find out it's already been done as a blog at 28.00 - truly inspirational, tom would be proud
thanks for the starting advice , rust is so hard , investing lot of time in it , instead of going after my hot neighbor
The irony of reading chapter 14 of The Rust Programming Language whilst background watching this…
ok but whats the drama, im not watching 1 hour video where they dont explain shit at the beginning
100%
Rust foundation questionable policies, he's been talking about few months ago.
It is drama over a preposed rfc so it is not merged. So the “drama” is just discourse over the proposal.
Literally nothing lol. The community is horrible to their maintainers
the previous "drama" was also over a proposal (the trademark policy), which BTW has been sent back to the drawing board
I spoke at the boston C++ conference a few times. last time, my zipper was all the way down, and no one cared. You do that in a rust conference, every furry and freak will get pissed and explode.
the rust foundation poisoning the rust ecosystem with drama is a massive risk for simple users. It will kill the popular libraries or future popular libraries.
What did they do? Sounds like community is toxic not the foundation
a comment: "How can Rust be serious if it's not OOP.". Lol. OOP is mostly mistakes. OOP didn't foresee concurrency. Most OOP languages are a mosh pit of many threads mutating a struct. Locks don't compose; so it's not quite right. This is backwards. Erlang is a million single-threaded processes consuming immutable messages on their own thread; the only real "encapsulation".
Most of the violations list seems like it is already covered in the original version, and could be covered by instead linking out to an FAQ of things that have been judged to not be acceptable in prior "case law".
Right which means rust users are weird autists looking to get mad over anything.
The problem is software dev mostly use public library. if public lib ecosystem was crappy, it will impact normal software developer
The thing with Rust is that one of its major value propositions is the ability to make software that stands the test of time. A package doesn't need to be "maintained" if it already has the functionality that it needs.
Assuming you make correct code that captured the wanted functionality from the start
I think that's covered in here. Most probably if the author (not someone who wants to fork and add more features) states that the package is complete/correct, it shouldn't be a problem.
@@VivekYadav-ds8oz that is the hope. I don't necessarily disagree either. Although we have to be careful with language that is up to interpretation.
@melonhusk562 what is?
@melonhusk562If a crate has a narrow focus, it's quite possible to do that. And many crates do. Only the big ones you're thinking of, massive libraries or whole frameworks, can be said to be incapable of being "finished".
I am ready to use Prime's fork of Rust. Long live the Prime foundation!
One advantage of Java is that, because it is so plain and corporate, there is practically no drama surrounding it. Any disputes that come up within Oracle are probably worded so passively and plainly, that the outside onlooker probably wouldn't even recognize it as a real dispute.
I do not believe that. Besides, hiding problems through obfuscation does not seem sensible.
So now the optimal way to name squat would be to make a "legit" crate depend on all your "reserved" ones. You could even spread some of the legit crate's code over to the reserved ones until you need them. So it would be really hard for the mods to determine if a crate is reserved or not. And they can't take it without causing a left-pad situation (especially if the legit crate is widely used).
Just reset the foundation. Fork the foundation? Can we FORK THE FOUNDATION ?
Fork the Foundation indeed
It's a real Hari Seldon kind of problem.
What about pitchfork the foundation?
What did they do here? Explain it clearly
I don’t think this makes rust look bad at all just seems like arguments over rfc’s this should be expected.
I don't buy the whole "you can't trust people who edit comments" either. The link contained information on how to spam. That's exactly the kind of stuff that they said they don't want to host on the platform, so why should they allow it in a discussion. Plus, it didn't provide anything of value to the discussion. I don't think anyone needs concrete evidence that ChatGPT is capable of generating garbage code with minimum effort.
I agree rfcs are where we should have drama it’s passionate discourse in the location where we want it lol. It’s not like they rolled it out and didn’t do an rfc
Drama gets clicks, and the few 100 loudest screechers flock around to convince eachother there's actually something of substance here. Rats in a bucket.
It must take some balls to drop an RFC knowing that there is a slight chance that the internet is going to clown all over it.
Perl's CPAN solved so many problems of having a packaging system, and here's all these new projects not learning from our
Thanks for this overview of how Rust drama affects people. I've never enjoyed a programming language as much as Rust. It's so freeing to have the language take a good portion of the burden of things you have to keep in the back of your mind in C++ and put it into language features and the compiler. I think the foundation issues will affect non-content creators, though, since there's no denying that there's a fairly steep learning curve to it. And to get over that you need not just one voice, but a variety of voices to allow people to have a choice of which tutorial creator matches with their learning style.
An example of this is Vim. I tried to get into Vim many times but the tutorial videos never really clicked until I came across yours. I think it was because it gave a method for slowly expanding my knowledge of Vim over time that was missing from tutorials that were more of a disjointed series of videos on individual topics. Had Vim cracked down on content creators like the Rust Foundation, those videos may never have been made and I'd still be using stock mouse+arrow keys vscode for programming.
@ThePrimeTime The problem is the fact that this video even needed to be made. That's the problem. They are running people away from an amazing piece of technology.
I’m 40 mins in what did they do that’s so bad lol? I think this proves that rust is for low iq idiots because they criticize the foundation over nothing.
For long videos, please provide timestamps
Ok but C is better anyway
facts
void **FTW
based
True
@@T1Oracleiirc that doesn't do anything
This feels kind of like the argument about C++'s complexity being beyond peoples ability to deal with. Sure, if you live in the vacuum of space, just you and a c++ compiler, you never have to deal with that complexity if you don't want to. Pick a subset of the language that isn't too complex and just use that. Just don't ever take contributions from other people who use the tool and don't depend on anything either, since the API might be tainted with extra-subset c++ concepts.
Similarly, in Rust, if you don't need to collaborate with anyone (who you are most likely to find in the community, and is most likely aligned with it even if you don't), you don't have to care about the community. You can just carve out a little isolated mini-community of your own in the vacuum of space, and protect the airlock with your own anti-community gustapomen so that you don't catch a case of community leakage.
Alternatively, you can stop trading wet turds for dry turds, and just use a different tool.
what
@@JohnDoe-jk3vv what what?
I think he/she is trying to advocate for namespaces (you can have your own little isolated community).
@@VivekYadav-ds8oz Oh, I see.
When I was learning Rust everyone touted “Rust has an amazing friendly community”. That might still be true, but this stuff definitely tarnishes that idea.
The problem of having very smart technical people in one group is over analysing and suggesting policies in ways that do not benefit the community.
With the namesquatting bulletpoint, you read the conditions as "and" instead of "or". Harpoon would be fine because it has specific functionality or purpose, even if it doesnt have significant dev activity
I thought it was an "inclusive or" but could a "xor".
I also think that maybe ... maybe you sometimes need to make a hard choice. Some people will not be happy, but you will still retain the majority and then be happily after.
5:55 "now let's do the whole rust drama business"
"When you give people the means to make laws, they will make laws." - Me.
god damn, not able to delete crates is so important. in android community, maven project can just gone with the wind, ive had to upgrade my library 2 version up because the old version is gone from the repository, and thats like 6months ago, wth!
Seems weird that their name-squatting example is someone as prolific as the creator of Tokio, rather than an ACTUAL name-squatting account that hasn't made _any_ worthwhile packages. The rules are reasonable, seems like the discussion has just devolved into people talking past each other for no reason.
Also they should add namespaces.
No, Carl Lerche is exactly the right person to discuss this with. He's one of the most prolific contributors to the rust ecosystem, so we know he's not a malicious actor. He also holds a lot of unused crate names. Above all else, you want people like him to not be hurt by new policy. That's why he's the perfect example. If you base the discussion on a clearly malicious account, then any set of rules that gets rid of them is acceptable.
ESG in package management? Was thinking about learning rust, No longer planning on learning it. I'll look at OCaml instead.
Those lizard people want to control your crates. Pack your cargo and let's move on.
If energy were not poured into those dramas, would we have a better Rust?
You can't take the drama out of people. Best to resolve the issues quickly and with as little fuss as possible.
Philosophically, there may be actual value in drama like this; at then end of the day it's somehow related to finding and optimizing the process by which the community as a whole is able to work to create a better rust. It might turn toxic, but is simply suppressing or ignoring these drama's better?
I'm sure there is a case to be made that this _form_ of drama isn't the most productive; that's for sure.
@@MoireFly it could also just as well be an overextension of a handful of large egos sabotaging a collective effort. better not to give bad actors the benefit of the doubt.
Unlikely many of the people who contribute significantly are also those involved in the drama. Core developers rarely have time for drama... let alone real lives. ;-)
@@arthurpenndragon6434no no, Ashley "kill all men" "fuck you not sorry" Williams had some value to add to the conversation. After all, it optimized the process by which the community as a whole was able to work together to create a better Rust. Unfortunately the Rust Foundation was not a part of that community, but the community did reach a *_very_* simple conclusion on how Rust could be improved.
energy vampires will just follow and harass you. No chance as long as they can still rope you in with something. You have to leave the language entirely and any flying monkeys
Why is it okay for Torvalds to shit on people, but it's problematic to be a bit snarky while trying to make a point?
@melonhusk562 Are you just brazenly assuming the person replying does not get shit done?
Personally, the fact that there is even that slight, non-zero probability risk and caveat that I would get levelled and completely desroyed by just using their product - the programming language - really makes my stomache tingle and is in my books, unacceptable
I genuinely do not know if I can bring myself to use a product who hates its users and hates its community more than their love for trademark and control
C/C++ in their almost what, 50 years (?) Of existence, never had such bullshit before, rust are basically single handedly deprecating themselves into obscuring the more they do this
Now of course, to be fair, obviously if it is malware, copyright, trademark by other companies with a registered keyword of the above, they are free to take it down
But in the general idea, the above statements are worrying
One of the worst ideas ever to not support package namespaces from the start. If they had that, then the rust foundation wouldn't even have to care if people used rust in their project name, since they could just take the rust namespace and nobody would have cared.
Rust drama is very easy to understand if you understand Robert Conquests third law of politics.
Thanks for making me discover those laws, very true in this case!
But how are they being left wing fighting squatters? Continued proof of brain injury among foundation critics
I don't see how OCaml can at all threaten anything. Since its initial release in 1996 they've not exactly managed to pick up that big a market share outside of academia. I've used it a lot at university. A lot of my peers have used it a lot at university. You'd think that the experience of all computer scientists coming out of the biggest university in the country would make OCaml fairly common in industry around here, right? It's not at all though.
Time to rewrite Rust in Ocaml
Wasn't the compiler originally in Ocaml?
C++ I think
The parser is in Ocamel, and the back (LLVM) is in C++.
Hell yeah let's Thanos-snap this shit and start over.
Pancake Shop Policy is to not serve pancakes to anyone who thinks in their mind-brain that Joenald Brumpden didn't lose/win the electrion fairly/cheatily. These policies are nonsensical scope creep. If you host packages, just host packages -- don't create a policy so complex it takes a team of attorneys, investigative journalists, and philosophers to implement. Yikes.
That 2% is LOUD though. And anyone learning Rust has to wade through it.
Here's my take. If you have a lake, but in order to drink from it you have to ignore that 2% sewage you see across from you, you can't really call it pristine, and you certainly wouldn't want to drink from it, right?
Rust is a language, it literally changes how you think about things. Do you really want those people to have any type of access to that?
30:00 I feel like primes point is valid here (though I'd hope that should be fixable with a better wording)
But a bit later when TJ says "Well what if you just thought of a sweet name and save it for later." I'd say that is literally what name squatting is...???
I don't know. What name could possibly be so unique to muddle the waters and make it harder to decide whether it's "just saving a nice name" or whether it is squatted to make it unavailable to others?!
IMO: if there were changes. If there actually IS a package.. it should not be taken down or given to someone because that goes directly against the "do not delete anything" thought. You would not be able to really trust that newer versions of a package are actually a continuation (though you should version pin anyways... but the point remains)
But if it is just an empty package (maybe including an unchanged fork) I could see a case for removing it
I gotta say, it was pretty funny that the person who blocked you on twitter had an anime catgirl pfp.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions and that's why you should never try to do anything good.
Now i Don't wanna learn Rust anymore
I wonder what he did to get banned from Rust's gh
Existed
How and who exactly determines if information is false, inaccurate or intentionally deceptive? I think they are diving into mirky waters right there. And are we still talking about rust packages here??
The depicts or glorifies violence may sound like a no brainer, but what about violent video games? Are those exempt (doesn't say it) or is that not seen as glorifying violence or are violent games simply not allowed on crates?
These rust bureaucrats are so cringe.
if no company uses rust they have to make they’re own drama
I bet the new accountability laws are pressing at least some of these changes. They are distancing themselves from people. They dont wantto be the source thats charged.
Why? Pleeeeaseee! Don’t pretend that you are not aware of the dysfunctional bunch that control Rust! Give me a break! It’s a real problem and we can’t keep ignoring it.
please put the link of the website you are reading from ?
Rust Drama.
Yup, people should just stick with C or Zig
wait so it's still only a proposal, meaning I can mine coin on crates build servers right now? sign me up
Porquê Maria?!
Why does this appear the day I try to continue my Rust journey 😢
What I'd like to have is OTPs for publishing crates. Even npm has that. As is anyone who get access to my HDD can publish crates under my name, because the only authentication is from a plain text file in my home dir.
Great intro statement I would have missed it if it wasnt the first thing in the video
Ok but OCaml
I think people will take any reason not to doing anything hard ever tbh
If there's a will, there is definitely a way to make a complicated
@@ThePrimeTimeagen Huh?
Candidly, I see no issue in the policy. There are clauses that are redundant, but not contradictory. And namespacing is completely orthogonal as mentioned. It may mitigate the number, but the problem statement is the same even if there are namespaces.
I'm no Stan. They goofed on the conference talk and not a good look on the naming policy, but this is not nearly the same level of "drama".
namespacing is not orthogonal
it erases a HUGE portion of this problem, tokio guy doesn't even have to worry about this problem AT ALL
@ThePrimeTimeagen you are either mistaken, or simply not understanding my statement. Maybe I was unclear.
The questions "Who determines who can have foo and who can have bar?" and "Who can have foo/x and who can have bar/x?" are the same question. And although it diminishes the issue, it doesn't fundamentally change it. So it doesn't change if namesquating is or isn't an issue.
Whether namespacing is implemented or not, there is still a separate question. Namely, how to deal with squatting.
Will this happen to the Zig foundation too?
The Rust community is so toxic that I stopped published crates under my real name.
44:08 When did he say, reservations are fair? I don't think he cares about that. It's just the pragmatic solution to a problem.
Feels like Elm shenanigans
Or Scala
There are a lot of points in here that seem way to easily abused or broad enough to become a bludgeon against people you dont like.
will there be an edited down version of this?
i may make a smaller version
We at Go and zig have been waiting for you
Yanking is great! More software ecosystems should adopt it.
It's an RFC. People are commenting, as requested. Where is the drama?
1. the rfc gives more power than a lot of people are comfy with
2. the comment was edited
@@ThePrimeTimeagen the link *did* give instructions how to spam the platform, so I can see why you would want to remove it. I don't think anyone needs concrete evidence that ChatGPT is capable of generating garbage code.
Turns out that r*st is unsafe lol
So journalists can't write about Rust without getting a licence to use the brandname first?
Rust should just do what Deno does and forget stupid package managers. Use git repos/tags/URLs.
agreed
based and gentoo pilled.
The proposed RFC isn't necessarily bad or unfair, it's just very vague and unfocused, which leaves room for the Rust Foundation to abuse these amendments in the future. This RFC proposition would be easier to debate and/or get passed if it had more concrete points or a specified methodology (HOW are they monitoring name squatting precisely?).
ah yes, yet another reason to switch to crablang. I wonder if Ashley "kill all men" "fuck you not sorry" Williams had a part in this, eh, I'll probably never know given they delete all the comments calling her out.
Isn’t that also how nuget is that you can’t have anything removed
25:48 So I'm not allowed to add a fetish story as an example story for my visual novel engine?
ocaml needs a rust-book and some crates ported and we gucci
To me its seems obvious that they're trying to tee up Rust foundation for a sale ... and sadly it's probably M$
o boy, one hour long movie about yet another rust drama. it must be huge drama.
its more interesting drama, going into the details
They'll not add namespace as then they have to acknowledge npm had a good idea