BlueManedHawk

in what sense does rust lock you into a specific ecosystem? you're free to use whatever package manager, build system etc you want - most people use crates and cargo because that's most convenient, but you are not in any way forced to use that

Rust only supports the one ecosystem.

This isn't accidental—it's explicitly stated as its goal. It's a bit like governments banning books because "think of the children!!!11!!!" except nowhere near as big of a deal.

I do not think it's particularly valid to compare equate government "safety" to programming language "safety", and not just because of unsafe blocks. It is generally easier to opt out of writing in a particular programming language than it is to opt out of a government doing a thing.

I agree—that's why i put the "except nowhere near as big of a deal" clause.

In addition, it locks programmers and users into a specific ecosystem, which people get all pissy about when proprietary-software companies do it, yet when Rust does it it's for some reason seen as okay despite being just as much of a hostile tactic.

There are some Rust libraries which export C-usable interfaces, most notably regex, which I believe is actually being trialled as a replacement for Python's re module.

This wasn't what i was referring to—sorry that i didn't make that clear. When i was referring to "a specific ecosystem", i was moreso talking about the toolchain of Cargo, rustdoc, Rustfmt, Clippy, etc. These not only are pretty much the only options for their respective areas of work, and the only ones which the Rust developers will support, but are also conceptually malicious in their own ways by forcing projects to use what's Standard™ instead of what's optimal for their particular situation.

Furthermore, the official community surrounding Rust uses an immoral code of law that allows for infinite punishment to be given to people, allows punishment to be given without a fair trial, and allows punishment for actions committed outside of the jurisdiction of the Rust community.

I mean, I haven't looked at this, but I think most communities informally work this way anyway.

Then they are just as evil. (Though informal guidelines are easier to break when needed, so i guess they have that going for them.)

scratch doesnt allow you to do anything unsafe at all, does that make it malware too?

That's a good question! I'd say no, since that lack of unsafety isn't due to the developers of scratch wanting to take away power from programmers; instead, it's just because Scratch is designed to operate in a limited environment because they recognized that it wouldn't be very useful for doing everything, particularly considering that other, more powerful languages exist.

That's not the same thing. It doesn't force users to comply with its idea of safety; it just makes safety the default. I'm completely fine with that.

so does rust! you can do everything you want to in an unsafe { block, even inline assembly. the safe subset of rust is the default

Oh. Huh. I just checked, and you are correct. Thanks for correcting me; I'll update my original comment.

That's not the same thing. It doesn't force users to comply with its idea of safety; it just makes safety the default. I'm completely fine with that.

Rust is malware because it forcibly takes power away from the programmer.

what on earth does this me

(Oops, this first paragraph ended up not being correct—thanks, taswelll! It's preserved below for posterity. The second paragraph still stands.)

While i disagree with the FSF on…many things, i think that their definition of malware as "software that actively and intentionally takes power away from its users" is an appropriate one, and one which Rust certainly fits. Rust takes power away from the programmer because it makes it completely impossible to do things that people often very well have a damn good reason for doing, forcing developers to make bloated, slow programs, all done in a crazed pursuit of "safety". This isn't accidental—it's explicitly stated as its goal. It's a bit like governments banning books because "think of the children!!!11!!!" except nowhere near as big of a deal.

In addition, it locks programmers and users into a specific ecosystem, which people get all pissy about when proprietary-software companies do it, yet when Rust does it it's for some reason seen as okay despite being just as much of a hostile tactic. Furthermore, the official community surrounding Rust uses an immoral code of law that allows for infinite punishment to be given to people, allows punishment to be given without a fair trial, and allows punishment for actions committed outside of the jurisdiction of the Rust community. All of these are immoral.

I hope this clears up what i meant.

Rust is malware because it forcibly takes power away from the programmer.

Rust is a malware language.