The Rust Flash Player emulator is a thing - and nobody told me
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
I think the Octocat in Neverball could only be used in that one version of Neverball seeing that
As shown at https://github.com/logos
Do not modify the permitted GitHub logos, including changing the color, dimensions, or combining with other words or design elements.
Do not use GitHub trademarks, logos, or artwork without GitHub’s prior written permission.
So each time neverball is updated you may need to get GitHub’s prior written permission if Octocat or any of Github's trademarks is left in this program.
Guix also may have removed this from Neverball.
You may need permission to put this Octocat in any thing each time you wish to modify the software, seeing it may not be the same way as first outlined.
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/games.scm#n10506
php has
4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
from name at domain. You may indicate that your software works in
conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling
it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:PHP-3.01
so maybe only the php name may not be used, nor may "PHP" appear in the name of any software, but if it is in the source code maybe it still can be used.
I do not think a change in php license will cause many problems, as long as PHP does not appear in the name of the software, seeing that the license lets you use covered code under that license.
Unless a security update has code covered under a later problematic license.
Than even if it is freedom supporting software now, as long as "PHP" is not in the name, it may not be later.
5. The PHP Group may publish revised and/or new versions of the
license from time to time. Each version will be given a
distinguishing version number.
Once covered code has been published under a particular version
of the license, you may always continue to use it under the terms
of that version. You may also choose to use such covered code
under the terms of any subsequent version of the license
published by the PHP Group. No one other than the PHP Group has
the right to modify the terms applicable to covered code created
under this License.
https://wiki.hyperbola.info/doku.php?id=en:philosophy:rust_trademark
has
Comparisons with other software trademarks
Some users have correctly mentioned that many other software packages have trademarks, do we plan to remove them all? No, but we see trademarks generic also not under a positive aspect. We accept them, when we are able to provide normal use, patching, and modification. We decline them nevertheless when they prohibit those and we try most to provide only community-oriented software.
As an example, neither Python PSF nor Perl Trademarks currently prohibit patching the code without prior approval. They do prohibit abuse of their trademarks, e.g. you cannot create a company called “Python”, but this does not affect your ability to modify their free software and/or apply patches.
Due to the anti-modification clause, Rust is a non-permissive trademark that violates user freedom.
Should a new Forum topic be made to discuss trademarks seeing that the name of this topic is "The Rust Flash Player emulator is a thing - and nobody told me"?
Like if any trademark policy changes could it affect the status of "free as in freedom" software, or updating that software as code may be under a new trademark policy?
I do not know what "No, but we see trademarks generic also not under a positive aspect." or "community-oriented software." may mean. Maybe trademark policy may cause problems later for a community.
Do not modify the permitted GitHub logos, including changing the color, dimensions, or combining with other words or design elements.
The same holds with the Python or the Perl logos, for instance:
- https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/ says that "any use of a derived (modified) logo for any commercial purpose must also be approved first by the PSF";
- https://www.perlfoundation.org/trademarks.html says that "Marks must be used in their entirety. Any variation in the form of the mark must be approved in advance in writing by TPF".
As an example, neither Python PSF nor Perl Trademarks currently prohibit patching the code without prior approval.
https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/#general-goals states: "We do not want these trademarks to be used to refer to any other programming language" (the emphasis is in the original text). Modifying the behavior of any Python function/keyword/... is making another programming language.
I actually even wonder if writing that in a policy changes anything: it is the whole point of a trademark to have a name and a logo uniquely identify a product/service. To not let similar but different products/services reuse them, so that the customers/users can know what they get. Unlike Hyperbola's developers, the free software definition specifically states that requiring modified versions to use a different name/logo is OK:
Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#packaging
Hyperbola can include/exclude whatever software package. The given rational may be incoherent, for instance accepting Python and rejecting Rust based on its trademark, although the two trademark policies are fundamentally identical. On the other hand, I see as a problem for the free software movement that the documentation of a FSF-recommended distribution claims that some free software programs (according to the definition maintained by the FSF) are nonfree. It brings fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD).
Maybe the
or / and
can check to see if it can convince Python and any other language to let their language be edited so that users can still use that language with all 4 freedoms.
Modifying the behavior of any Python function/keyword/... is making another programming language.
Thank you for that information, Magic Banana, maybe Python's policy change was made after Hyperbola found about Rust's trademark problem.
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/rust-flash-player-emulator-thing-and-nobody-told-me#comment-175219
If one freedom is lacking, that means its non-free, doesn't it?
https://trisquel.info/en/forum/rust-flash-player-emulator-thing-and-nobody-told-me#comment-175223
Changing the name on Python could still be a thing that someone needs to do, depending n the changes being done, like if the changes should trigger any of the "We do not want these trademarks to be used" area comes up.
Maybe someone on this Trisquel forum can think up a way to quickly rebrand things with a trademark policy that blocks one or more freedoms.
Will the program grep
have a fast way to find and replace words?
Also if
Modifying the behavior of any Python function/keyword/... is making another programming language.
is linking or using a program with a language making another language, seeing it may be like adding or modifying a function, keyword or behavior of that language.
Although any program using a dependency of a language may also need to have a script remove trademarks, if those are like a function, keyword or behavior of that language.
I do not think a discussion brings fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD), just lets people have a discussion on what is the best way to make sure freedom supporting software will support freedom supporting software later on. And also what may be the best way to rebrand or change anything that may need to be rebranded or changed to keep it "free as in freedom" software.
If one freedom is lacking, that means its non-free, doesn't it?
One more time (as prospero wrote: "We seem to be trapped in a loop"):
Trademarks are compatible with free software, as long as the related policies are not overreaching (adding restrictions to the distribution of exact copies, in particular). The free software definition even specifically says it is OK to impose a change of name/logo for derivative works. Doing so, the trademark policy does not apply, of course. No freedom is lacking.
Maybe someone on this Trisquel forum can think up a way to quickly rebrand things with a trademark policy that blocks one or more freedoms. Will the program grep have a fast way to find and replace words?
sed (not grep) can do that... but there is no need to rebrand here: the trademark policies of Rust, Python, Perl, or OpenJDK are not problematic.
Thank you for telling me about sed so if I wished to
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
(1) to study and change the program in source code form,
mostly change, or make modified versions,
(3) to distribute modified versions.
or just edit a large amount of my own files, I can do that faster than I did before.
Before I think I mostly searched with
grep -r
and used find and replace in Pluma on each file, one at a time.
You may like my slides about text-processing commands:
- Simple but powerful text-processing commands: https://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/slides/mda3.pdf
- Selecting lines: https://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/slides/mda4.pdf
- sed: https://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/slides/mda5.pdf
- awk: https://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/slides/mda6.pdf
- A few words about efficiency: https://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/slides/mda7.pdf
sed is very superficially presented (almost only the s command, to substitute). Unlike awk, which is far more appropriate to process data tables. The exercises focus on such data. They are still online, along with answers to the exercises (to learn better, you should first spend time trying to find a solution by yourself).
Hmm... I must be unable to understand this at least for Rust if nothing else maybe others?
did you read what Hyperbola said about PHP? How they silently dropped the gpl license option when php 4 came out?
As for OpenJDK, I won't really argue too much about it, even if it were or is free whichever you prefer, java is a massive beast even as programming languages go.
As for FSF having those three packages, I am not sure why they would have those 3 still listed. Although maybe I am missing the fact that trademarks aren't an issue here because no one thinks they will abuse them? Idk...
Well in any case, this still makes no sense to me.
But perhaps its pointless to beat this dead horse anymore. I am not sure if an agreement can be come to here.
Actually EDIT:
I think I understand one possibility, even if its impractical, it still could be technically libre even though it would be a pain in the butt to change every individual logo/trademark, removing them, because it is still possible.
Is this what you mean? If not then I am stumped
Last Edit: and if the above edit is not the case, when I say stumped, I mean completely.
did you read what Hyperbola said about PHP? How they silently dropped the gpl license option when php 4 came out?
I now did. The license under which PHP has been distributed for the past 24 years is a free software license, according to the FSF: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PHP-3.01
The issue, according to Hyperbola's developers, again relates to having to change the name, "PHP", in modified versions of the software. One more time: that is acceptable; that does not make a piece software nonfree; it is even specifically written in the free software definition.
Hmm, maybe Hyperbola does have PHP wrong given what you showed me. Although it could be incomplete the info FSF has I suppose, but it might be sufficient too. I had thought it required php logos to be removed in order to modify it. Its possible they got that wrong.
btw, For modified versions of rust and java, are you saying it is libre because you can remove the trademarks and then its fine or just in general.
I would like to end this loop in understanding something more.
On further inspection I think Hyperbola did make a mistake with php.
Though looking on rust's trademarks, even if they could be considered usable as libre, it would be a massive undertaking to remove all references of their trademark.
Java I am not sure about:
https://openjdk.org/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html
It looks dubious though.
I think I was wrong about the Python trademark seeing that
Uses that Never Require Approval
All trademarks are subject to "nominative use rules" that allow use of the trademark to name the trademarked entity in a way that is minimal and does not imply a sponsorship relationship with the trademark holder.
As such, stating accurately that software is written in the Python programming language, that it is compatible with the Python programming language, or that it contains the Python programming language, is always allowed. In those cases, you may use the word "Python" or the unaltered logos to indicate this, without our prior approval. This is true both for non-commercial and commercial uses.
This clause overrides other clauses of this policy. However, if you have any doubts about your intended use of the trademarks, please contact the PSF Trademarks Committee.
And seeing "This clause overrides other clauses of this policy." the Python trademark policy may only be there to prevent against fraud.
Also I think I was using old Hyperbola information that is saved at
not newer information that is saved at
I may have also made a mistake with "Commercial" that may mean "nonfree" in the trademark policy
https://www.python.org/psf/trademarks/
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial
A user called throgh at
https://forums.hyperbola.info/viewtopic.php?id=981
showed me more information about this.
Also
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PHP-3.01
shows
This license is used by most of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft free software license. It is incompatible with the GNU GPL because it includes strong restrictions on the use of “PHP” in the name of derived products.
We recommend that you not use this license for anything except PHP add-ons.
I think the
3. The name "PHP" must not be used to endorse or promote products
derived from this software without prior written permission. For
written permission, please contact name at domain.
may be the term that "strong restrictions on the use of “PHP” in the name of derived products" that fsf.org shows seeing "without prior written permission"
shows
A. We cannot really stop you from using PHP in the name of your project unless you include any code from the PHP distribution, in which case you would be violating the license. See Clause 4 in the PHP License v3.01.
But we would really prefer if people would come up with their own names independent of the PHP name.
so if you "include any code from the PHP distribution" you may be "violating the license" if you also have "PHP in the name of your project".
So maybe any project that has PHP code in it can not use PHP in it's name, as using PHP code and the PHP name you may be violating the license.
I had thought it required php logos to be removed in order to modify it.
Not a problem either, as specifically stated in the free software definition. One more time (please read):
Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately. Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#packaging
And you can read https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html#trademarks too. It confirms that "as long as the practical requirements are reasonable, free system distributions may include [trademarked] programs, either with or without the trademarks". Requiring to change the name or remove logos in *modified* version is reasonable. It is even the point of registering a trademark: allowing the customer/user to distinguish the product/service from similar ones.
For modified versions of rust and java, are you saying it is libre because you can remove the trademarks and then its fine or just in general.
As written above, "it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your modifications as yours". Not only for Rust or Java. In general.
CrabLang showed that forking Rust was a matter of mirroring the Rust codebase, plus catching some crabs. If someone intends to implement major changes to a system programming language, one would expect that they should be ready to go through such a process. The best person to ask about that is probably the one who was "head of forking" at CrabLang: https://github.com/trvswgnr. We can only speculate.
Note that the Rust project revised its governance structure in June 2023, from which point the CrabLang fork became purposeless, and hence inactive.
https://blog.rust-lang.org/2023/06/20/introducing-leadership-council.html
The trademark case probably remains moot in the absence of confirmed insuperable difficulties to rebrand Rust. I am not going to pretend that the current governance structure is necessarily easy to navigate, but any fork also has the effect of getting rid of it altogether.
In the absence of any conclusive argument based on current facts, completely excluding Rust looks like an instinctive reaction to it being sponsored by entities that are not known to be massively friendly to software freedom. Just because someone is working for Microsoft does not make them evil, so why should they not be sitting at the Leadership council?
https://www.rust-lang.org/governance
I like the Rust leadership council meeting minutes: "Josh: How many of us actually know what is in current policy? Should we go off and read both the document and current policy before we form opinions?"
https://github.com/rust-lang/leadership-council/pull/64/files
I think unmodified versions may also need to have a name change seeing that
shows
A. We cannot really stop you from using PHP in the name of your project unless you include any code from the PHP distribution, in which case you would be violating the license. See Clause 4 in the PHP License v3.01.
But we would really prefer if people would come up with their own names independent of the PHP name.
so maybe any program, even unmodified ones, if included in what may be called the "project" of Trisquel or it's repository if any program has both PHP in it's name and code from the PHP distribution it may be breaking the terms of PHP's license.
Than the makers of PHP may "really stop you" from distribution of programs with both PHP code and programs with PHP in the name as it may, as according to https://www.php.net/license/ those who distribute it like that may be violating the contract like license.
So this one may need to have it's trademark be removed or, maybe according to the license whoever distributes it may be breaking the license, and breaking thus breaking copyright, as only the license may let you use the code, and contracts may add more terms than "trademark law" allows.
Even if
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html#trademarks
shows
free system distributions may include [trademarked] programs, either with or without the trademarks
The makers of PHP may not let anyone use the name of PHP in the name of any program that has PHP code, as that could break the license "contract like things" and thus copyright. Even if normally trademarks can be used in an unmodified program, these may not be used in even unmodified programs as long as PHP code is in that program because of the license terms that may add more rules that "trademark law" uses as licenses may be more like "contract law", I think.
I'm not a lawyer, just trying to find out if the PHP license can be thought of as a contract adding more terms than "trademark law, and copyright law" normally uses, seeing contracts may add more terms than "copyright, trademark, and/or patent laws" use.
I think only Burger King(TM) can "legally" distribute the Whopper(TM), except in several counties around San Antonio Texas,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burger_King_legal_issues
and McDonald(TM) can "legally" distribute the Big Mac(TM),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s_legal_cases
so maybe only PHP(TM) can distribute things with the PHP(TM) in the name of the product.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240118184719/https://content.minetest.net/threads/734/
has
Unless the maker of this mod somehow can make a Power Ranger mod, is the copyright of Power Rangers held by Hasbro. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Rangers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbro https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?p=432228#p432228 I do not like copyright, but I also do not wish to get sued.
I think the book "Against Intellectual Property" by N. Stephan Kinsella may have nice information about how copyright may take away your property rights in other things, though till copyright is not enforced, I do not know if Hasbro will try to take this off of minetest's site.
https://cdn.mises.org/Against%20Intelle ... erty_2.pdf book under NC-ND 4.0, but if it is followed, maybe copyright and patents will not be able to be enforced. Till than I do not wish to get a lawsuit against me, or https://minetest.net
I'm not a lawyer, so I do not know about these odd so-called "copyright" "patent" and "trademark law" things. Parody as fair use? Or some other "law" maybe?
https://cdn.mises.org/Against%20Intellectual%20Property_2.pdf
shows the pdf,
and also in the minetest link at https://content.minetest.net/threads/734/ has
hey patent is a sample, I'm also not a lawye but my Grandpa is a doctor he told me, trademark law means that you need to purchase the thing from the company if you want to produce it under the company's name, and copyright is a confirmation that you are producing company's products under the company's name, and have purchased the right to produce it.
by a user called Arkatron.
https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?p=432228#p432228
Also shows how, even with nonfree blocked, the Nyan Cat mod and maybe more mods, like Power Rangers, can be downloaded with Trisquel's minetest client.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyancat#Lawsuit
Lawsuit
In May 2013, Christopher Torres and Charles Schmidt, the creators of Nyan Cat and Keyboard Cat respectively, jointly sued 5th Cell and Warner Bros. for copyright infringement and trademark infringement over the appearance of these characters without permission in the Scribblenauts series of video games. Torres and Schmidt have registered copyrights on their characters and have pending trademark applications on the names.[34][35] Torres released a statement saying that he had tried to obtain compensation from 5th Cell and Warner Bros. for commercial use of the character, but was "disrespected and snubbed" multiple times.[36][37] The suit was settled in September 2013, with Torres and Schmidt being paid for the use of the characters.[38]
This Nyan cat also had trademark and copyright in a court case.
You seem to be confusing different parts of the "intellectual property code", as it named in many juridictions. They have little to nothing in common. Simplifying:
- Trademarks deal with identifying products/services. With names and logos typically. Reusing a trademarked name/logo is not advisable... and that looks good to me: if I enter a fast-food named Burger King and using its logo, I want to find the Whopper there! In the same way, if a website proposes me LibreOffice, I expect the software by the Document Foundation and not some malware.
- Copyrights deal with copying/distributing/modifying/... the content of a book/picture/movie/software... Not burgers here: they cannot be copied. Copyrights are supposed to motivate the authors to create more. "Supposed" because having only a few superstars living from their copyright revenues is obviously not the best way to promote authorship. Also, copyrights now last long after the death of the authors: good luck motivating dead authors! Free software licences use the copyright law to somewhat reverse it: granting the users freedoms rather than restricting them.
- Patents' goal is to avoid trade secrets, to promote the publication of novel ideas/inventions by granting a temporary monopoly (20 years in many juridictions) on them. In the software realm, patents do the exact opposite: they block innovation. Most people live in countries where software is not patentable but some legislators (for instances in the USA and in Japan) were fool enough to accept software patents. There is no need to implement the patent to register it and attack those using the alleged invention, which is, for software, typically very vague.
As this thread is about rust, I wondered about your thoughts on this: https://drewdevault.com/2019/03/25/Rust-is-not-a-good-C-replacement.html
I don't personally know if rust adds new features that fast, but if so, it would be considered a rolling release programming language.
My point being, even if you consider it completely free, is it worth it?
Somethings 10 years later C does the same, who knows how it will work in rust.
Anywho, just curious on your thoughts about that aspect.
Feel free to also respond MagicBanana.
Would like to see your take on this.
Feel free to also respond MagicBanana.
Although the article is sometimes too assertive (in particular when it says that "the values of good C++ programmers are incompatible with the values of good C programmers"), I liked it. It looks important to remember that a system developer wrote it: there are user-facing applications requiring performances too, not needing a stable ABI or the support very exotic architectures, etc. Although the article is one-sided, the main advantage of Rust is admitted:
Yes, Rust is more safe. I don’t really care. In light of all of these problems, I’ll take my segfaults and buffer overflows.
I also "take my segfaults and buffer overflows", but writing programs in C++. Some reasons "I don’t really care" are that using multiple threads (which is actually important for the program I am currently working on) has been fine since C++11 (whereas "Parallelism in C is a pain in the ass for sure") and the security is not a problem for the programs I wrote: applications only running locally. Of course, it would love to have the compiler catch anything pointing to invalid memory. However, as the author of the article writes, C++ and Rust are similar and they are very complex (although, at least in the case of C++, nothing forces the program to use all the features the language proposes). Now, I do not have the time I have spent learning C++. A student I advise decided to learn Rust. He likes it and so do many other users, apparently.
Oh so you do like this one article? I was half surprised to see your response. Shows me sometimes I underestimate people in certain areas.
I am very much glad something I showed you is of value.
I remember talking to someone who said they thought the memory safeness of rust was there, but exaggerated. I cannot say for sure though as I don't use it or really any programming language much, beyond python.
Just have my opinions, on programming languages being better off being stable and not huge in features or as I sometimes call it bloat.
Anywho, yeah that's my point.
I saw prospero's response below yours and yeah, I don't really have much else to say for the time being.
To be honest, Rust is still better than java at least anyhow.
By the way, as a note, I don't expect to change anyone's mind about rust at this point.
And to be honest, it is still a safer more secure programming language than java anyhow. Night and day difference probably.
Oh so you do like this one article?
I do. What I hate is articles making up problems that do not exist (or do not exist anymore), relying on vague statements or plain lies or ad-hominem attacks or... Here, the article does not pretend that Rust suffers from freedom issues (it does not), that it is against the UNIX philosophy (whatever that means), that it would not actually deliver the safety guarantees it delivers (it does, outside the "unsafe" blocks, obviously), that it is bad because it comes from Mozilla (with a secret agenda or something), ...
Instead, it is all reasonable arguments based on facts. Yes, Rust is less stable (i.e., gains features at a higher pace) than C, what makes old Rust code looks more outdated than C code. Yes, Rust is more complex than C. Yes, Rust is not standardized, has only two compilers, no stable ABI, and no stable compiler flags. Yes, Rust cannot be compiled for very exotic CPU architectures. Nobody reasonable would deny those facts.
And, yes, a system developer can consider those issues outweigh the benefits Rust brings. The author lists the two main ones: memory safety and an easier parallelism, also with safety guarantees. He brings arguments to downgrade their values: rewriting code would bring more bugs than what memory safety avoids and so would parallelism, which would not be that useful anyway. That probably makes sense for system developers maintaining existing code. Not much in some other contexts, such as for new CPU-intensive application projets.
Also, the author insists that his main argument is "Rust is more complex than C". That is why he will *never* choose Rust. Again, that makes sense: the other listed issues boil down to "Rust is immature" and should become less and less problematic over time.
Hopefully rust does get better with time, I am skeptical for now. Although if the choice is between java and rust, I would agree with rust being chosen 99 times out of 100.
I am still mixed on other parts of rust, such as complexity, but at least it seems like a secure programming language so far, even if stability issues may exist. No idea, though as you mentioned, it is a young programming language.
Anywho, this has been interesting, perhaps its time for me to go elsewhere. Assuming no one resurrects this thread after its buried
Although if the choice is between java and rust, I would agree with rust being chosen 99 times out of 100.
I am not an expert in programming languages. I used a little Java (and C, but mostly C++) though. Java is quite different from C++ and Rust (and even more from C). Different languages have different advantages and drawbacks. A program in Java is slower than the same program written, with more difficulties!, in C, C++ or Rust (intermediary between those compiled languages and interpreted languages such as Python), memory management is easier (at the cost of higher memory requirements), the default language includes classes for many things (rare need to hunt for libraries), there is no need to recompile to run on a different architecture, but the runtime must exist and be installed, etc.
Why dogmatically refusing a free software program based on the language it is written in? That makes little sense to me, unless proprietary software is required to run or compile the program or if the free software tooling may cease to be developed because of patent threats. C#, which is similar to Java, used to raise such concerns.
> the other listed issues boil down to "Rust is immature" and should become less and less problematic over time.
That blog post was written five years ago, so the number of new features per year may already be down.
I believe the main pushback against Rust came precisely from people like Drew Devault - system programmers - and for the very reasons he mentioned. Hence his conclusion. When you think about it, there would have been no pushback without a push in the first place. Why push?
>"When you think about it, there would have been no pushback without a push in the first place."
I think you just proved the existence of God. Well done.
Why push?
To write code that is at the same time efficient and memory-safe. That is desirable in many (but not all) situations.
This does not seem to answer the question. Pushing does not write code, it just makes people feel pushed. It is to be hoped that a language that helps programmers writing code with the above-mentioned properties will in all likelihood be adopted based on its own merits. The ballyhooing hullabaloo seems to have subsided, though, so all is well and everyone is back to their knitting programming in their language of choice.
Note that we are slowly reaching the bottom of a two-page thread about...a tower defense game emulator. In all likelihood, this could soon turn into discussing Bill Gates as the Antichrist, Egyptian gods of the dead, latin for dummies and systemd as the fourth beast of the GNU/Linux Apocalypse. And the various ontological arguments for, against and undecided about the relative nonexistence of $GOD. And it would all be Rust's fault.
The ballyhooing hullabaloo seems to have subsided, though, so all is well and everyone is back to their knitting programming in their language of choice.
Rust 1.0 was released not even four years before the publication of the article. At that time, I guess it made sense to present what Rust had to offer, to "push". Now, developers have heard of it and, for the fourth year in a row, Rust is the "most loved" language, in Stack Overflow's survey: https://stackoverflow.blog/2023/06/13/developer-survey-results-are-in/
> to present what Rust had to offer, to "push"
You will note the subtle nuance between the two.
There would probably have been no Drew Devault article without it, which was my point.
Well I guess the thread will be alive for a while more. lol.
Meh, I tried.
By the way, I didn't expect people to bring up Systemd as being the fourth beast of GNU/Linux Apocalypse or that you hint at it being rust's fault. I assume those are jokes from your end. I never have said Systemd was part of a GNU/Linux Apocalypse. Mostly because I didn't think it was that high of a problem anymore than other redhat creations. Its just one of many things that I don't see as needed or helpful and is detrimental, but nothing beyond that yet. Unless you can't boot your system of course but yeah, its hardly the only overengineered design.
Although, I could be wrong about it being that dangerous. Given its creator didn't disclose he worked for microsoft for a long time after he started.
"Hopefully you’ll stop bloody bothering us about it."
Well said.
Where exactly was this written, on page 1? I don't see it written down at the moment.
In any case, I think one thing we can all agree on is proprietary software and even more so DRM or similar will always be the worst option for a long time to come.
Actually, ironically, I found something *GOOD* out about rust and this shocked the hell out of me:
Apparently, it is a very energy efficient programming language.
Not as good as C, but alot better than I thought.
I thought java and rust would be among the top most energy inefficient.
Java though is a security risk, but rust?
Only thing I am shifty about is their trademarks on cargo and rust.
Which I know you all say is not an issue.
But in any case, here is a link of what I am talking about:
https://stratoflow.com/efficient-and-environment-friendly-programming-languages/
You can also do searches in general into whatever search engine you use and you will find this is not an anomaly.
Friggin weird though, given the size of rust's compiler.
I guess it uses less once its built. Its only building it that is a problem... who would have thought. :s
Actually, ironically, I found something *GOOD* out about rust and this shocked the hell out of me: Apparently, it is a very energy efficient programming language.
Summing up the article, which is too verbose (maybe AI-generated): a) the energy consumption is approximately proportional to the execution time; b) running native instructions is faster than interpreting (and using a virtual machine is in-between). As a consequence, compiled languages (C, C++, Go, Fortran, Pascal, Swift, Rust, etc.) are more energy-efficient than interpreted languages (Python, Javascript, PHP, Ruby, Perl, Lua, etc.). Experiments clearly confirm that, since every single compiled language is ranked better than every single interpreted language: https://stratoflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/most-efficient.jpg
That is not surprising. Notice that it is probably better to not look too close at the numbers. They depend on the tackled problems. For instance, Fortran is known as (one of) the fastest language for floating-point computation, but is here slowest among the compiled languages. Also, the precise results depend on the quality of the implementations. Whoever wrote the C code may have written the Fortran code... but, maybe, she was an experienced C programmer and new at Fortran, explaining most of the observed difference.
Problem is, many different searches indicate the same thing. Its not just one link that I found that indicated this.
I found like ten different ones.
So... yeah.
I was unaware of compiled languages being more energy efficient and interpeted languages being less efficient.
I will admit, I have ignorance on these facts till someone showed me this info.
I just searched, most energy efficient programming languages and most of them indicate the same thing:
C, Rust/C++
are the top efficient ones.
So... that's definitely something I hadn't known. I guess speed isn't the only determining factor.
I remember reading this paper in 2019. MB also posted a link to the same paper some years ago.
https://greenlab.di.uminho.pt/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/sleFinal.pdf
And they say information flows faster than ever...
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios