[ithkuil]

For the sake of the argument, let's imagine that you fork rust. You'd have to come up with another name for it right?

But since the name it's the only thing that is getting in the way with this new (draft) policy, you wouldn't really have to fork the language and the tooling etc. All you have to do is to just use this new made up name in place of rust (and similarly for cargo) and you've achieved independence with a fraction of the cost.

E.g.

Rust -> Crust Cargo -> Embargo

"Hey, here's a quick Crust tutorial: check out this git repo and run: embargo build"

[serial_dev]

In the last few hours, I've been thinking about how much effort would it really be to fork it, Iceweasel style, and IMO even just forking, renaming would be a pretty significant effort (if done right).

Fork the web page, you cannot just replace Rust with ALTERNATIVE, because ALTERNATIVE is not used at npm, you don't have a Discord community, and you don't have books and videos, and no foundation. All those changes would need to be kept up-to-date.

You could also have a new file type, .altrs, while you still want to be able to use Rust's files. Same goes for tooling, supporting websites such as crates.io: you might want your own, but you also want all the tools to work with the Rust crates. With the new file type, you need people to know how to change their config to treat .altrs files as regular .rs files.

.. though I don't know how much of it would be really necessary if all you want is to not violate their new policy, so it's more of a thought experiment at this point.

[Asooka]

Rust->Roost

Cargo->Corvo

And from there on we have a ton of bird-related puns for naming.

[chaxor]

Crst contains the word Rst, which is illegal so you can't do that.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Formatting note: You probably want to escape your *s (with backslashes)

[ithkuil]

does it really work that way though? Not sure if I can tRust this assertion.