Hacker News Reader

Comment by yazzku | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft as a platinum member of the Rust Foundation is probably reason enough to not adopt the language.

I guess you’ll also have to avoid adopting C++ and Javascript and Python and JSON…

C++ is designed by a committee, for better and for worse, with TS contributions from people of a variety of industries and backgrounds.

Rust doesn't even have a formal spec, it's just whatever rustc admits. The potential for a single corporation to steer that for its own benefit seems greater to me. And we know how MS has attempted to destroy Linux before, in particular with its incursion with .NET in Gnome.

Honestly, that sounds fantastic.

Indeed. C++ is garbage with "cout << this << is << how << they << expect << you << to << print << stuff". Javascipt is only used for privacy violations on the web. And Python has significant indentation and too many types.

I think this is a really fun complaint because iostreams is terrible and has no reason to be terrible, but if you use C++ in the day to day it just does not matter. There are so many other problems. If your first complaint is about iostreams you probably did not get past hello world.

Don’t worry friend, after 30 years C++* will have a smattering of support for a print function in the standard library

*some versions of some implementations

JavaScript one made me spit my drink. Thank you for making my day.

Funny but not untrue!

Why, funding needs to come from somewhere.

It's not like they took over the project or became it's main contributor or something.

Replace project with politicians election campaign.

If Microsoft does something you don't like with Rust you're free to Fork.

Microsoft has been pretty good to developers lately.

Except Windows developers, since Windows 8 WinRT, Windows 10 UWP, Project Reunion, WinUI 3.0/WinAppSDK, killing .NET Native and C++/CX, while their business units put Web widgets everywhere, mess.

Electron is here.

For better or worse most developers aren't developing true native apps anymore.

That doesn't take away from what Microsoft has done for open source lately.

That is what Web apps are for, no need to ship Chrome alongside each application.

Everyone shipping Electron is helping Google to turn the Web into ChromeOS.

Not like they are being sued for stealing code at this very moment. They are just so good to developers/s.

Other than all the game devs they just laid off.

Good news is they can’t lay off any members of the Rust Foundation.

But TypeScript and C# are both awesome.

I don’t know that I’d rush to call Typescript awesome. It’s only awesome sitting next to JavaScript. Compared to say another modern language (I.e Dart or Kotlin) which has proper typing, compilation and didn’t have to take on all the baggage of that level of JS interop it’s actually quite a shit language.

Just using the idea of mixins as a quick example.

Here is how they look in Dart: https://dart.dev/language/mixins

And here’s how they look in Typescript: https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/mixins.html

No, they are not. There was a time when Microsoft tried to sneak C# through Mono into the Gnome desktop under the "promise" that they would not enforce legal action. Fortunately, many smelled the BS from miles away, except for some misguided Gnome developers. Why should Rust not also be a vehicle for Microsoft's new incursion into, e.g., the Linux kernel, where some are already poking Rust?

I am not all that familiar with the Rust Foundation; but I do not trust corporate-owned languages in general, let alone ones where Microsoft seeks to have an influence.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/07/micro...

When .NET (that is, what became CoreCLR runtime flavour) was open-sourced, it was done in such a way as not to cause issues for existing Mono, Xamarin and Unity code, and allow cleanly merging the first two into overarching .NET ecosystem.

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/LICENSE.TXT

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/main/PATENTS.TXT

Given that MSFT never sued anyone for .NET or .NET-related matters, so far their reputation is clean in that area, unlike certain Java-related company.

(after reading the thread, I'd like to suggest taking a seaside vacation)

This is not a refutation of my statement. The episode I mentioned came years before the opening of .NET core, and the threat of a lawsuit was very much real at the time. Their track record is generally still one that does not promote trust.

I get you feel the need to have MS and that's for good reason but not every single thing that they do is not and cannot be that bad.

Why? What negative impact will it have, by your prediction?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com