Rust was always a corporation/FAANG language when you looked at contributors and sponsors, so it's probably not real reason, I mean it is clear async was rushed out for AWS/Amazon and everyone celebrated it nonetheless.
Human rights are not political unless you're trying to reduce them. Mozilla justifiably did not want to work with someone who opposes certain human rights (including those of other employees), and that shouldn't be controversial or political.
I think they're dredging up Brendan Eich's opposition to gay marriage. But no, the latest kerfuffle isn't trademarks, either. If you're interested, it's all over r/rust.
If it involves people, it will be political. There's absolutely zero way to avoid it short of it being a single-person project (and arguably even _that_ will be Political at the very least).
Ah yes "there is always x, so why shy from this x?", I wonder if there's a named logical fallacy for this, I think the closest might be "Moral Equivalence"
There will always be drama, there will always be politics, but I wonder how entities manage to graze by with broad support in those situations, possibly by being equitable, consistent and transparent? Just guessing.
Python doesn't have so much regarding internal struggles of power, same for Linux (BFDL might have his controversies but nobody is seriously considering forking the Kernel)- and that's one of the largest FOSS projects on the planet. Even when things get super sticky (like nvidia) people still broadly support Linux and the direction?
Why is that? There's politics, but we're not really complaining that there are politics, we're complaining that there's a essence of abuse here. We're complaining that there is a distinct lack of transparency, consistency, and a broad lack of what many would consider to be morally OK.
That's not really politics, but you could just roll it into the same word if you're dismissing a project for troubling elements that are non-technical. Politics being people and all.
> Ah yes "there is always x, so why shy from this x?", I wonder if there's a named logical fallacy for this, I think the closest might be "Moral Equivalence"
I absolutely did not say that, and would not say that. The person I was responding to was making a comment saying that a language shouldn't be political.
My point was that it's impossible to have a language that isn't political, simply by nature of it involving humans. They will disagree. They will need to make decisions. They will change their behaviour to get what they want, either consciously or subconsciously.
> Python doesn't have so much regarding internal struggles of power
What....? Python has all sorts of political crap going on. Take a look through the dev forums and mailing lists. Look at the various groups and subgroups of developers, the way they interact and organise around different perspectives etc.
There was a whole bunch of that leading up to Guido's eventual stepping down as BDFL, after the long fight to get PEP 572 out (walrus operator). He even called it out in his stepping down email.
More context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35583089