Our great sponsors
-
-
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
-
> If the compiler claims to follow the specified version of the spec, and it doesn't, you file a compiler bug.
> And then use the subset that it supports, perhaps by using an older spec if it supports that fully. Perhaps looking for alternative compilers that have better/full coverage of a spec.
If you encounter rustc behavior that seems unintentional, you can always file a bug in the issue tracker against the compiler or language teams[1]. Humans end up making a determination whether the behavior of the compiler is in line with the RFC that introduced the feature.
> "Supports the spec minus these differences" is still miles better than "any behaviour can change because the Rust 2.1.0 compiler compiles code that the Rust 2.1.0 compiler compiles".
You can look at the Rust Reference[2] for guidance on what the language is supposed to be. It is explicitly not a spec[3], but the project is working on one[4].
1: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Ais...
2: https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/introduction.html
3: https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/introduction.html#what-t...
4: https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-visio...
Mara's blog post also describes the benefits of standardizing Rust.
Since she created the RFC for standardizing Rust (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3355) and is also on the team that is working on Rust standardization (https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-visio...), I think she was making the point that Rust has good controls in place for adding features while compatibility, not that "Rust does not need a standard".
If she really believed that Rust does not need a standard, why would she create the RFC and join the team working on the effort?
Rust is a great language. There is no reason why it should not have a standard to better formalize its requirements and behaviors.
They created a specification for Ferrocene because Rust does not yet have a language standard:
https://spec.ferrocene.dev/
>> But does the language need a standard?
Yes, Rust needs a standard.
>> And if so, then for what purpose?
For the same purpose that all standards have--to formally define it in writing.
Ferrocene's web site (https://ferrous-systems.com/ferrocene/) shows that it meets the ISO 26262 standard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_26262).
Why does ISO 26262 matter? What purpose does it serve? Couldn't a vehicle manufacturer just say "our vehicles are safe"? Which would you trust more: a vehicle that is verified to meet ISO 26262 standards, or a vehicle whose manufacturer tells you "it's safe"?
And mips64, which rustc recently dumped support for after their attempt to extort funding/resources from Loongson failed:
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/648
This is the biggest problem with the LLVM mentality: they use architecture support as a means to extract support (i.e. salaried dev positions) from hardware companies.
GNU may have annoyingly-higher standards for merging changes, but once it's in there and supported they will keep it for the long haul.