Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by InfinityByTen 37 days ago
I like this article already because it took me to the goals of Rust for 2026. We use the language in our team, but we haven't needed to go very deep to do the stuff we need. Yet, I really enjoy witnessing the development of a language from ground up with so much community feedback.

I somehow miss noticing that in C++ and I have no idea how it is working in other domains.

My only gripe is that a lot of it is feeling a bit kick-starter-y, with each of the goals needing specific funding. Is that the best model we've found so far?
3 comments
NobodyNada 37 days ago
> My only gripe is that a lot of it is feeling a bit kick-starter-y

IMO the term "project goals" is quite misleading for what this actually is. A project goal is a system for one person (or a small group of people) to express that they'd like to work on something and ask for Rust project volunteers to commit ongoing time and effort to supporting them through code review, answering questions, etc. It doesn't mean that the Rust project itself has set the goal, or even necessarily endorsed it.

So it's not quite right to treat it as a formal roadmap for Rust, just a "there are some contributors interested in working on these areas".

link
repelsteeltje 37 days ago
> I somehow miss noticing that in C++ and I have no idea how it is working in other domains.

There seems to be some consensus even within the C++ ISO committee that the evolution process of that language is somewhat broken, mostly due to its size and the way it is organized.

> My only gripe is that a lot of it is feeling a bit kick-starter-y, with each of the goals needing specific funding. Is that the best model we've found so far?

Sadly, this seems to be the way things go once a technology catches on, commercially. Can't blame large donors for sponsoring only the parts they are interested in. Fortunately, considerable funding of TweedeGolf comes from (Dutch) government, I think.

link
diondokter 37 days ago
In open source I guess there's two types of work: 1. features 2. maintenance

You can 'sell' new features. They cost money to create, but they solve real problems. Those problems also cost money and if that's more than the cost of creating the feature, companies are willing to put in money (generally).

Maintenance is harder. But there are now some maintainer funds! Like the one from RustNL: https://rustnl.org/maintainers/ These are broader ongoing work and backed by many orgs chipping in a little bit.

Idk if it's the best model, but at least it seems to kinda work

link