I would have preferred Rust, a language created by Mozilla instead of one with ties to Apple, but I’m not a dev so I can’t really judge. What are your thoughts?

  • Jim@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Dude, if you’re being obtuse on purpose because you have an ax to grind against Rust, try a different approach. You’re not getting anywhere, clearly by the fact that no one agrees with you.

    If you don’t like that Rust has a restricted trademark, then call that out instead of trying to label the software and it’s license as non-free. It’s literally called out in my source that name restrictions ipso facto does not violate freedom 3.

    But if you genuinely believe that the implementation of the Rust language and it’s trademark is burdensome to create a fork, and you want people to believe you, then you gotta bring receipts. Remember, the benchmark that we both quoted is that it “effectively hampers you from releasing your changes”. It being “not a piece of cake” doesn’t cut it.

    Hint: Google Rust forks since their existence also undermines your claim.

    Good luck.

    • JustMarkov@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Remember, the benchmark that we both quoted is that it “effectively hampers you from releasing your changes”. It being “not a piece of cake” doesn’t cut it.

      The easiest example is that you’ll have to adapt all Rust-dependant applications to the Rust fork, 'cause it is a programming language.

      But still, don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to say that Rust is a bad language or something. I’m just trying to point out on the problem, that was adressed to Rust Foundation before.

      Good luck to you too.