Hacker News Reader

> This fork promises "All of the memory-safe features you love, now with 100% less bureaucracy!" Compelling, until you realise that all the commits are auto-merges of rust-lang/rust's main branch. Which means the same teams doing the same work, under a different name.

It started out specifically as a reaction to Rust's take on trademarks, so shipping the exact same code with a different name was the point.

OK but it says "100% less bureaucracy", although it doesn't actually seem to have a plan for that. Changing the name is... fine? Like it's definitely a thing you can do, for sure.

I'm not sure what that accomplishes - you can use this project and there's no trademark policy so... I guess you could abuse that if you wanted to? Like you could start your own "CrabCon" and no one could say anything about it legally... ok.

The "less bureaucracy" is the lack of the same trademark policy. That's literally it. They're not threatening to sue you if you don't include disclaimers on everything you do while using their language.

> The "less bureaucracy" is the lack of the same trademark policy. That's literally it.

Right, and like I said, that's fine. But it's pretty meaningless and actually has literally nothing to do with the language, which has no trademarks associated with it (nor could it ever have such a trademark as the foundation does not "own" the language). So forking a language over a trademark that doesn't apply to a language makes very little sense.

> They're not threatening to sue you if you don't include disclaimers on everything you do while using their language.

No one is threatening to sue anyone for using the rust programming language. That is an extremely incorrect view.

At best you could say there is a threat to sue someone for how they use certain terms or icons, but this is completely unrelated to the language itself. It's also completely standard. Further, the document in question was a draft submitted for feedback.

Almost any language is going to want trademark. Python recently had to deal with a troll trying to assert ownership over the branding because they had not defended against this. As someone mentions in an issue on the crab repo,

    How would you feel about a shady company posturing as "The Official Rust" distributing a paid copy of the compiler? Does that seems like a thing we as a community should allow? That's what the trademark policy is for: preventing shady abuses of our beloved lang and community.

These things will absolutely happen - they have happened before to other languages!

I think software developers just have no idea how these things work. You know that every LICENSE.txt is a "threat to sue you" by your standard?

edit: Also, you're wrong. Their goals go beyond just removal of the trademark policy.

> The "less bureaucracy" is the lack of the same trademark policy. That's literally it. They're not threatening to sue you if you don't include disclaimers on everything you do while using their language.

Neither is Rust, so we're back to this being pretty stupid.

I normally scoff at controversy-spawned "forks" but I feel like the more important conversation here isn't "Crablang good" or "Crablang will replace Rust" but, (and this is evidenced by Crablang popping back up again today, despite not actually stemming from the most recent controversy), a general, increasing feeling of doubt or mistrust in Rust leadership.

Frankly, much as I love Rust and don't think this will ultimately stop its trajectory... it's really not the first time that folks at Rust have, how do I try to put this nicely, forged their own path and expected people to just deal with it. I still have a rotten taste in my mouth about the website redesign, and the near gaslighting around it.

(completely unsubstantiated, but I can't help wonder if any of this attitude falls over from Mozilla. Some of Firefox's treatment of user preferences and Pocket feel... well, a similar mix of ignorant and arrogant. shout-out to when Firefox had a floppy-disk-"save" icon that auto-uploaded your screenshot to the cloud, absolutely brilliant!!)

EDIT: Welp, sure enough, there's that [one name] again, associated with a vastly unpopular Rust decision, going out and doubly down individually and casting aspersions. What a shame.

> they're still figuring out a governance structure that works for everyone

If they are indeed trying to figure out a structure that works for everyone, I’m afraid they’re pursuing a dead-end. One should be OK, in principle, to not aim for pleasing everyone.

True, but you still need to figure out who you will please. Many of their directions are concerning to a lot of people. Even if the majority agrees with the decisions (which isn't clear), they can still be unhappy with the way the decision was made/announced.

https://github.com/orgs/crablang/projects/4?pane=issue&itemI...

> crab #51

> create experimental branch

> opened last week

> just need to create the experimental branch

> it will start from the current state of our master branch, which is currently synced with upstream project but afterwards will not receive updates unless they can be incorporated without too many conflicts.

> This item hasn't been started

Open for a week. What's the matter, they're figuring out how to create a git branch? It's `git branch experimental && git push`, and running that would have been quicker than creating this ticket.

I wish everyone who read this thread yesterday could have also seen this - a shining example of the capabilities of the clout chasers involved in this project. They've delivered on their promise of "no bureaucracy" by avoiding software development altogether. Genius.

I think making a git branch which has auto-merging (but only if not conflicting with the upstream) is more time consuming than just making a branch at the current state.

More likely this involves some kind of release engineering; anyone who has worked on large projects will tell you that it's not an effort to take lightly.

Personally I feel like this fork is not really serious, but the issue might be that it either becomes serious or Rust's leadership will not change course.

So, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and quietly hope that I will never need to use crablang.

I'm heavily invested into Rust and enjoy the language immensely. Bureaucracy and slow moving is something I'd prefer at this point. There are only a handful of things I actually want added to the language.

The advantage of Bureaucracy is it gives time to think. I've approved several pull requests in my life that looked good and only latter realized while it worked it wasn't how we should have done things. (sometimes it takes years to see this, but sometimes it is quicker)

> figuring out a governance structure that works for everyone

Does anyone honestly think this is even possible?

> The fact that they don't have bureaucracy is a direct consequence of them not doing any work right now.

Is “bureaucracy” a euphemism for Diversity, Equity And Inclusion busybodies, in this case?