I think Steve has a well earned reputation for being decent and trustworthy.<p>I can understand the desire here for more details so that others can come to a firmer conclusion but try to put yourself in Steve's shoes. It is <i>very</i> hard to publicly criticize <i>some</i> of the behavior of a group you are a member of without burning bridges or deeply harming relationships. At the same time, saying nothing publicly is read as tacit approval.<p>I interpret the article as a giving Amazon credit for why people like Rust, and Steve's response as a public disagreement saying that such credit is unwarranted and gives Amazon more power than it should have over Rust's future direction.
The facts are pretty thin here, but this seems to be the core tweet:
<a href="https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437441118745071617" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/1437441118745071617</a><p>To summarize:<p>* Amazon has too much administrative influence<p>* Amazon has marginalized the core team<p>* also un-stated dirty tricks by Amazon<p>I think rust is great, and I love with the rust community has accomplished, and I wouldn't want to see Amazon break that. But from this thread I don't know enough to raise objections. It sounds like a Rust foundation governance issue, the sort of thing that comes up from time-to-time on most big successful projects.<p>[edited to fix formatting]
Is there more context here that's missing from the tweet thread?<p>> And now they want to actually take Amazon's principles and claim that they're Rust's.<p>These just... literally... aren't Amazon's principles. At all. "The practice of coming up with pithy statements to guide decision-making" is the Amazon part.<p>> they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.<p>This sounds like the real concern, and it sounds really concerning, and I hope people come out to speak publicly and candidly about it. But it doesn't seem sensible to pretend that the making a list of adjectives is itself malign.
The Rust Foundation has indeed been disappointingly opaque.<p>Their website contains only anodyne director bios and board meeting minutes. The minutes go up to May's meeting, with most of the content omitted under a "Private Session" heading.<p>AIUI the main need for a foundation was so they could own the Rust domain names and trademarks. Eight months later, I've seen no announcement on whether any progress has been made with this.
I think that folks that are asking Steve for more details are not being unreasonable. It came as somewhat surprising to me (and probably to most folks who are not involved with the core/admin side of Rust).<p>However, I also think that his tweet might be more in the pre-emptive vein of "cease and desist" leveraging his personal standing in the community instead of actually getting into a war with Amazon's side. The objective seems to be basically to let them know that if they continue with their current behavior, it will be met with resistance. He is taking a risk though because we don't know enough to have an informed view of the actions that might have triggered this.
IDK I think this is overblown. Amazon employs two core members of Rust leadership. Both of whom worked hard on making Rust amazing like few others did. Both of whom who joined Mozilla to work on amazing projects for wages below what different places in the industry would pay. Do such people really betray their project of passion for money? Note that joining Amazon alone is no such act. It's joining Amazon and then becoming a heavy lobbyist for whatever Amazon wants to do with the language.<p>Also note that leaders of teams don't have many special rights. They are more primus inter pares than bosses. This doesn't mean that people don't listen to them, but it's more informal and due to respect of the individual from what I can see. Respect that they'd lose if they supported some crazy Amazon idea that is harmful for the language.<p>As for core team vs foundation issues. I share concerns voiced in the community that the foundation is intransparent. But ultimately, the core team as well as the foundation don't do day to day operation of the language.<p>Maybe Steve sees something that I don't, and he's certainly in a better position to see things, but I don't see much of a threat, at least not right now.
Summary:<p>- The Board of the Rust Foundation intentionally let the contract for the current acting Executive Director (ED) of the Rust Foundation lapse.<p>- It was intentional because it would have been easy to extend the contract but it was chosen not to.<p>- The lack of ED gives Amazon a great deal of control as the Chair of the Rust Foundation.<p>- There may be some underhanded or subjectively dirty things being done by Amazon administratively or PR-wise regarding Rust.<p>- Because of the power imbalance created by the lack of ED, those actions are a cause for concern.<p>- Regardless of how/why/who caused this, regardless of intent for administration, this situation should be fixed.<p>Solution: The Board of the Rust Foundation needs to pick the damn ED and establish limits on membership affiliation like other projects.
One confusing thing highlighted in the thread: the article says Niko Matsakis is "co-lead of the Rust programming language project".<p>Niko is a long-term participant in Rust, and former core-team member (<a href="https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/core" rel="nofollow">https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/core</a>), who's made huge contributions. However, it's not clear to me what that co-lead reference means. The closest that comes up is that he's a co-lead of the rust language team, which is distinct from the core team. Quite possible I'm missing something, would love to see someone make it more clear.<p>Source: <a href="https://twitter.com/sheevink/status/1437446217806528523" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/sheevink/status/1437446217806528523</a>. I personally am not saying the article is misleading, just that I am confused.
Steve should layout his grievances publicly. I'd trust Steve more than Amazon, but at this point we need to understand what is going on.<p>As leadership/control seems to be mostly on the domain name, name, logo and Github repository; at this point it's possible to fork the project and move to another leadership. There is enough traction, in my opinion, that the "marginalized core devs" could take on the project again. The contributions made by Amazon could then be merged selectively.
I actually really like Zig's stance on this. Not having company members on the Board + trying to employ developers from the community helps with the issues that Rust is currently facing. Of course due to Rust's history things work differently, but hopefully Steve's comments will get them to look at this issue more critically
>> In the beginning, Rust did have one sole patron: Mozilla. Everyone was uncomfortable with that arrangement, including Mozilla.<p>>> We spent years trying to get away from this situation. It had tons of negative effects.<p>>> Why are we regressing here?<p>Amazon has an interest in using Rust to help build their software, probably for heavy use in AWS.<p>Amazon also has a lot of money and talent that can help Rust continue to grow and improve.<p>It is a delicate balance to accept help and resources, but not let Amazon take too much control.<p>What should be done?
Here's a response to tbe same from Mara Bos:<p>>What a bullshit. Steve is absolutely right that the 'core team' is becoming less relevant. But that's not because Amazon is taking over. The core team hasn't really been steering or leading Rust anymore. Other team members have been doing that. Many of which don't work at Amazon.<p><a href="https://twitter.com/m_ou_se/status/1437493300496420868?s=19" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/m_ou_se/status/1437493300496420868?s=19</a>
Why was it a problem that Mozilla was heavily involved in Rust?<p>As an outsider, I felt that Mozilla lend credibility to Rusts efforts, and Rust gave Mozilla relevance.
The InfoWorld article [1] (linked from the first tweet of the thread) has now been updated:<p>> Editor’s note: A previous version of the article correctly stated that the Rustacean Principles were modeled after Amazonian tenets, but unintentionally may have implied that Amazon was somehow responsible for Rust development. Amazon employs several Rust maintainers and contributors, but it is just one of many companies with employees involved.<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust.amp.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust...</a>
There's too much money in Rust, and many power brokers at play here from Google, Amazon, MS, et al. People are incentivized by money and career growth to lead Rust's future. I think core members should be the one leading the foundation, but there are a few reasons this hasn't happened:<p>1. Core members are burnt out.<p>2. This is not their primary skill set (administration vs engineering/community building).<p>Other languages have been blessed with an administrative group (GvR/Python[0], Hickey/Clojure), corporate sponsor (Pike/Go), or committee (C++, Java). The counterpart for Rust is core member/Mozilla, but <i>there is no appetite for this responsibility</i>.<p>0: I like this talk about governance models at Pycon 2019, after GvR stepped down as BFDL: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAC83JVDzL8" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAC83JVDzL8</a>
The issue is probably touchy. It may not be possible to share "objective" facts with the public. This unfortunately makes it harder to differentiate it from FUD or another instance of open source drama.<p>The thread starts with a (vague) statement against Amazon trying to expand its control on the Rust project.<p>It later ends up being a spat between rust team members (who aren't a part of Amazon) on the role of the Core team.<p>I feel Steve does not have enough support among the members of the rust teams for whatever he was going for with this. The derailing of the discussion also makes it seem as if there are other issues at play.<p>Sadly, this may end up amounting to nothing more than burnt bridges.
Still have trouble parsing this. Some person not with Amazon anymore wrote a fluff article about how Rust aligns well with Amazon principles.<p>And Amazon as heavy users of Rust have people on the committees? What's the process to getting them those seats? Voting?<p>> they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.<p>How?<p>OpenSource politics is sometimes the worst.
Large organizations are full processes for balancing power between internal groups. As Rust Foundation, Amazon, and other companies become more involved, friction will happen more frequently. The Rust Foundation will need processes for balancing power between the companies and various groups inside the companies.<p>PR pieces are usually full of deception. I expect that Rust Foundation will end up with a process for approving Rust-related PR from supporting organizations. They will pay someone to do that work.<p>So far, Rust has been run by people who behave reasonably. I'm confident that they will resolve this issue. They will resolve it with open discussion, expressing and acknowledging different opinions and needs, explaining tradeoffs, and progressing steadily to consensus.<p>Here's a great talk by previous Rust head Ashley Williams about Rust's decision-making process: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLstJFvdl4s&t=1808s" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLstJFvdl4s&t=1808s</a><p>Some articles about it:<p>- <a href="http://aturon.github.io/tech/2018/05/25/listening-part-1/#the-great-int-debate-and-the-no-new-rationale-rule" rel="nofollow">http://aturon.github.io/tech/2018/05/25/listening-part-1/#th...</a><p>- <a href="http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2020/12/30/the-more-things-change/#on-pluralism-and-the-rust-organization" rel="nofollow">http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2020/12/30/the-...</a><p>- <a href="https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/" rel="nofollow">https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/</a>
One thing I haven't seen highlighted is the difference in attitude/action between Amazon as a corporate sponsor and other corporate sponsors. Rust has other corporate sponsors (Microsoft is on there essentially twice w/ the GitHub acquisition) -- has any such attempt been made by other sponsors?<p>That aside I'm convinced this is the fate of all board/complicated governance structure popular open source project. If you make the governance structure that mirrors corporate constructions, people who work at big corporations and know how the politics work are going to find themselves right at home.<p>I don't know what the solution is, you can't expect every project to have a BDFL and there is a lot of work to be done on a huge open source project, but I always see the adoption of a corporation-like governance structure without explicit limitation on the power/influence of involved groups/corporations as a red flag.<p>Steve mentions it himself but the idea that Mozilla is anything like Amazon is a farce. I'd trust Mozilla to build me a browser (they do), a phone (they did), a physical computer and whatever else because of how they're structured, what they profess, and their track record. I'd trust Amazon to do none of those things (mostly because I thankfully have other options right now). Mozilla supported this project from it's inception and has made it what it is (along the way reducing it's own influence to make sure there was no misconception). Amazon has no such track record that I know of, and it's corporate structure does not suggest any alternative driving force outside of maximizing profit.<p>The contributors <i>who happen to work at Amazon</i> who were able to contribute to Rust under Amazon's largesse (whether direct or indirect) deserve the status they have achieved within Rust, but there is a conflict of interest. If that conflict of interest grows, then it has to be addressed.
The platinum members of the Rust Foundation are Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Mozilla, and Huawei.<p>I'd pretty much prefer that <i>none</i> of those companies have any role in defining Rust – but, instead, they seem to be about the only ones who do.
Here is a Thread Reader view of these tweets.<p><a href="https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1437441118745071617.html" rel="nofollow">https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1437441118745071617.html</a>
There was an interesting quote under one of the replies:<p>> The power of rust is that it's for the people... not for massive orgs to wield in order to make more money<p>Given that most rust code is licensed under non-copyleft licenses (MIT, etc.) I wonder where this impression came from? I have always had the impression that rust was exactly that - just another tool for massive orgs to make more money.<p>In contrast, a language ecosystem more like elisp, where most code is GPLed seems more "for the people".
This is a naive take, I admit, but...how does Amazon co-opt the Rust Foundation without the Rust Foundation allowing Amazon to co-opt it?<p>Is Amazon hiring existing members of the Rust Foundation such that they weren't involved with Amazon but now are? e.g. paying these people to work on Rust but under Amazon's terms?<p>Isn't it then up to the Rust Foundation to declare this a conflict of interest, perhaps, and to sever ties with that member?<p>That said, Mozilla really did drop the ball by laying off all their staff on the Rust project and effectively defunding it. They might have well have created a power vacuum and Amazon beat Microsoft to the punch.
While I hope this gets sorted out in a nice way, I do hope Amazon's influence brings more focus on to using Rust for Web services. A lot of people and companies are using it as a systems language but it definitely has some good potential to compete with Go and Java in web services segment. Of course, the ecosystem is almost there but its not deep enough to be fully say yes for arewewebyet.com
Google has Go, now Amazon has Rust, and Amazon will not let Rust go away.<p>Amazon has enough money (and no moral or ethics) to take Rust and twist the reality to make people believe Amazon is right and Rust community is wrong.<p>Let's watch the show.
I think Steve is being too vague for me to understand well. Let me see if I can break it down.<p>Steve is suggesting Amazon is becoming a problem to the future of Rust. He is suggesting that Amazon is coming to control Rust. The evidence he is giving to this end is:<p>1. An Amazon employee creating Rust principles that shape the community<p>2. An Amazon employee being effectively in control of the Rust Foundation because there's no Executive Director atm<p>3. Amazon employees taking up many positions in leadership<p>4. Some supposed "dirty shit" going on by Amazon behind the scenes<p>5. The core team losing their recognition and status?<p>#1 would be a problem if they didn't consult the rest of leadership first or if the principles are pushing forward Amazon's own personal agenda but Steve isn't making those claims as far as I know.<p>#2 is a problem atm but I assume a temporary one. Steve isn't making the claim that they are not appointing an ED in order to gain power but this is a problem that remains nonetheless. Amazon should not be in control of the Rust Foundation.<p>#3 Amazon employees should not be able to control the Rust Foundation, if this is what is happening.<p>#4 Steve claims something dirty is happening behind the scenes by Amazon. Unfortunately, we don't have details on what supposedly dirty things are happening. Of course if Amazon is pushing their interests on the rest of the Rust team, that would be a problem.<p>#5 Steve refers to the core team being undermined but I don't understand what he means by that. Is no one listening to the core team anymore? Are they not being included in important leadership decisions? Is the core team not functioning as it was originally designed? What is the problem here specifically?<p>It does seem like Amazon is gaining a lot of control over Rust and that should probably be adjusted. Firstly, by appointing an executive director. I don't see any evidence of malice or agenda pushing by Amazon though. I cannot agree with Steve here without evidence. The core team should be working as intended too. It seems like Rust leadership needs to come together to discuss these issues and try to resolve them. I'm not sure why Steve is asking the community to solve them when it's leadership that has the decision-making power here.
Regarding Rust, Amazon has done way more good than harm. They helped in solidifying Rust as a professional language with good wages.<p>Developers come and go, it is unreasonable to strike the big company if the future of the language is dependent on the fact that a couple of "core" devs work at it and someone is writing articles about this and that that involves Rust.<p>Other languages have been through worse and survived, why not Rust?
Fwiw, as far as I'm aware, the principles and priorities outlined in the referenced article [1] were core Rust principles from the early days while it was still a project at Mozilla, rather than anything Amazon has defined recently.<p>They may have become more formalized over time, into a sort "Six laws of Rustbotics" sort of thing. Eg.:<p>- <i>First Law: “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.”</i><p>- <i>Second Law: “Performant: Idiomatic code runs efficiently, except where doing so conflicts with the First Law.”</i><p>etc.<p>The crux of it all is prioritizing reliability and deterministic elimination of undefined behaviors above all other priorities. Only a handful of languages have done that in the past (Ada, Haskell, etc), but none reached mainstream acceptance in the way that Rust has. <i>That</i> is something new.<p>I'm not aware of <i>that</i> particular value being closely associated with Amazon, moreso than Google or any other US Big Tech company.<p>If not for Steve's concerns here, I would have guessed the opposite, that Rust is defining Amazon's engineering culture and principles, than the other way around.<p>But it also sounds like Steve is being the canary in the coalmine here, and calling out something that may not be a huge problem right now, but could become so in the foreseeable future, and implicitly calling for governance reform similar to other communities [2] to prevent it. An ounce of prevention now is worth a pound of cure later.<p>[1]:<a href="https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.infoworld.com/article/3633002/the-future-of-rust...</a><p>[2]:<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514002" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28514002</a>
Its like back when XML was a thing, and people were freaked out about Microsoft's outsize influence on the XML standards committee. MS tried very hard to put in features into XML that would align nicely with their proprietary tools. IBM and others fought to keep XML agnostic. Satisfying that XML doesn't occupy an important place... given how Microsoft tried to take advantage.<p>Sometimes vendors will influence, if not in intent, in 'naturally' justifying 'intuitive' features - intuitive in the sense it might line up nicely with their future roadmaps?<p>Amazon has got some negative publicity with exploiting Open Source projects and using it in AWS. Recall how Oracle has 'guided' Java. Not saying that Amazon will come with its own agenda. In general Amazon has played nice with OSS.
I mean what Steve says makes sense. Steve is far move involved with Rust.<p>However independently reading those documents from Amazon I felt "God, Rust seems more corporate language then even Go, Java or Swift."
I think seanmonstar also works at Amazon, his projects are exceptional and I've been following him from his MooTools days.<p>Many of his peers went to work on React. Others like davidwalsh worked at Mozilla.
Still don't know why we should let these big tech companies have board seats on programming language foundations for them to have the power to do this.<p>I feared this would happen months ago when Facebook joined the board and even talked to steve about my concerns [0] [1].<p>Unfortunately it has come true with no surprise.<p>[0] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125591" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26125591</a><p>[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26989286" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26989286</a>
I've read through the comments in this thread, the linked Twitter thread, and the article linked by the top tweet, and I'm still confused. What is Amazon doing to define Rust here? I worked at Amazon, I do not hold a positive opinion about the company/working there, but I do not see what they have done that is remotely harmful or aggressive. Can someone spell that out for me?
>I want big companies to be involved in Rust<p>Why?<p>Steve Klabnik is one of my favorite technical writers. He is also an anti-capitalist. Early Rust documentation contained a lot of references to influential 20th century Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg.<p>I feel people like him should increasingly stand their ground instead of being apologetic about their views.
I can understand every aversion to Amazon having control over Rust. But looking at these principles:<p>* “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.”<p>* “Performant: Idiomatic code runs efficiently.”<p>* “Supportive: The language, tools, and community are here to help.”<p>* “Productive: A little effort does a lot of work.”<p>* “Transparent: You can predict and control low-level details.”<p>* “Versatile: You can do anything with Rust.”<p>I don't really see what the problem is. They aren't particularly Amazonian principles, and they all seem like good things to strive for.<p>My biggest complaint would be having Amazonians having control over feature roadmap and code acceptance. Amazon's priorities very often are in direct conflict with literally everyone else's priorities. Not to mention the fact that I've seen a lot of code at Amazon, know how nightmarish it is, and can reasonably infer that the internal politics at Amazon do not allow for, and often penalize, quality code. It is not at all unthinkable that some department with stupid priorities and lots of political clout pushes through some half-baked shit bonanza that will bite everyone else in the ass. That is a problem.
So far I've only followed Rust peripherally, but if Amazon is going to drive it, that makes me more interested in adopting it. Experience with Scala, and contrast with Golang and TypeScript, makes me want to use a language that has a strong corporate backer.
What is the issue?<p>Companies & languages, the only issue I am aware of is Oracle suing Google over the use of Java. Are they concern that Amazon will sue the users of Rust language?
What is the worst case scenario that the author imagines happening to Rust due to Amazon’s influence (or anyone’s influence)?<p>This is unfamiliar to me - are there notable stories of what poor steering has done to a programming language? What were the consequences?<p>I can parse the basic grievances here on power dynamics, losing control of something you helped build…that’s familiar enough…but I’m having trouble understanding the gravity of what the author is passionate about preventing.<p>(In case it isn’t obvious I’ve never been a long term contributor to an open source project - genuinely curious about the context here)
FOSS Projects should fight to maintain a healthy independence from corporate influence. That perfect balance ism difficult to define, much less maintain.
Amazon has done the same thing to Apache TinkerPop (and Apache in general). They got the founder kicked off the project for being a "Nazi racist."<p><a href="https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/23/apache_tinkerpop_speech/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/23/apache_tinkerpop_spee...</a><p>Why would Amazon want the founder off the project? See the following presentation which interestingly enough, is no longer indexed by DuckDuckGo nor Google:<p><a href="https://www.slideshare.net/slidarko/mmadt-a-virtual-machinean-economic-machine" rel="nofollow">https://www.slideshare.net/slidarko/mmadt-a-virtual-machinea...</a>
Well, if only Rust had a solid custodian, defender of open source... Oh wait, Mozilla basically ditched the project, and Servo, and Firefox OS... blame Mozilla.
,,I've tried to get this message across in private. They just don't care.''<p>,,they've also taken steps to marginalize the core team. and some other dirty shit I won't say rn.''<p>Maybe Steve (and other Rust team members) should adopt openness and stop making deals in private. That's not how open communities are built.
I don't really understand the issue with aws's involvement with rust? As far as I understand, they want a language that lets them.<p>1. write software thats high performance
2. minimize defects
3. can be used for a variety of sitauations<p>There are all things I want from rust as does the community as a whole. Seems like the incentives are lined up in a way thats beneficial for everyone.<p>maybe someone else can educate me on something I don't know here?
Had to chime in on the first of the named "principles" of the language, because it makes a good example of what I think is wrong with the Rust community:<p>> “Reliable: If it compiles, it works.”<p>This isn't a principle. This is a subtweet.<p>The principle being elucidated is something more like "fully specified semantics" or "no undefined behavior". And that's fine. But phrasing it like this is (1) obviously a lie as plenty of Rust code will compile that doesn't work and (2) needlessly picking a fight with C/C++ instead of engaging productively in a discussion of tradeoffs.<p>Meh. It's time for Rust to start doing more and saying less, IMHO.
I have questions:<p>1. Can you really blame it on Amazon?<p>2. Shouldn't you actually blaming that on other companies too, like the rest of the FAANGs for starters, for not hiring rust contributors?<p>3. Aren't the people involved with Rust at Amazon at fault for putting up with the supposedly dirty stuff without saying a word? The paycheck is too fat to do the right thing?<p>I'm honestly quite fed up with the hypocritical BS of our industry. Mr
Klabnik is calling out Amazon, while not calling out the people that prefer the proverbial "fat paycheck" over "the right thing".<p>I'm quite fed up of people calling out FAANG and similar companies for their toxic behavior while working there in the name of the fat paycheck, or applying as often as possible to get a job there, effectively contributing to those toxic behavior (directly or indirectly).<p>Those people the Mr Klabnik is so explicit in defending are probably smart and competent enough to go work anywhere, there are probably a number of companies that would accept them to work on Rust. Yet they stay at Amazon.<p>It's not Amazon's fault here.<p>The fault is in the people from the Rust team deciding to work/stay at Amazon.<p>I call BS.<p>(edit: i'm getting downvoted yet this post hasn't received a proper reply yet)
In terms of how to run a tech foundation, no (former) employee of Mozilla has any standing to talk. Mozilla has watched Firefox market share evaporate, laid off core tech teams, all the while increasing the pay of their leadership.<p>I am completely willing to give Amazon the benefit of the doubt, and let them be involved in the Rust foundation as they see fit.<p>The great thing about open source, is that the code is open source. If enough developers don't like the way stuff is being handled, they are free to fork.
I'm OK with Amazon taking over. Maybe they can make the language really successful and a proper replacement for C++. The current team failed at that.<p>Whenever I speak to a C++ dev about why they won't switch to Rust they tell me the language is just too bloated and horrible and they prefer their version of hell to the "rustician" variant.