| Another reason that I don't see given its fair chance might be politics. The human race has a wide variety of values that are often counteracting. Forcing a specific set of values participants must adhere to in order to interact with the community will undoubtedly alienate adopters. That's why most projects, companies, and even governments tend to strip down the rules that govern them to what is necessary for them to function (e.g. separation of religion from state for governments). The common reason given by the rust community to justify their behavior is that technology does not exist in a vacuum, and that technology can not be separated from politics. I completely agree. However, politics should be tackled on a layer incompletely independent from technology. Mixing the two only causes instability and uncertainty for rust. Here are two risks that arise from this mixing. I'm sure there are many, far more serious, risks besides these two: - What happens when (not if) a significant shift in values occurs in the community? Will it collapse? - What about technical or legal changes to the project that were driven by community values rather than technical or legal merits? This is not far fetched when technology and politics are made inseparable in the way it was done in Rust. I use rust in a professional context, and I appreciate what it brings in terms of technical benefits. but I would be lying if a said this aspect of it didn't worry me. I can not recommend its adoption to colleagues from other companies if asked for this very reason (I was asked once so far). Community instability or the mere perception of such is a big barrier to adoption, at least for companies. |