Comment by judofyr
10 months ago
(emphasis mine)
> opposed to the idea of multiple implementations, which is plainly false, as evidenced by the link to the official blog post celebrating gccrs. Ted T'so is speaking from ignorance here.
Why use so strong words? Yes, there's clearly a misunderstanding here, but why do we need to use equally negative words towards them? Isn't it more interesting to discuss why they have this impression? Maybe there's something with the communication from the upstream language developers which hasn't been clear enough? It's a blog post which is a few months old so if that's the only signal it's maybe not so strange that they've missed it?
Or maybe they are just actively lying because they have their own agenda. But I don't see how this kind of communication, assuming the worst of the other part, beings us any closer.
> Why use so strong words?
I'm not going to mince words here. Ted T'so should know better than to make these sorts of claims, and regardless of where he got the impression from, his confident assertion is trivially refutable, and it's not the job of the Rust project to police whatever incorrect source he's been reading, and they have demonstrably been supportive of the idea of multiple implementations. This wouldn't even be the first alternative compiler! Several Rust compiler contributors have their own compilers that they work on.
The kernel community should demand better from someone in such a position of utmost prominence.