Anybody interested in a Languages-hosted-in-Rust WG?


:slightly_smiling_face: I’m in agreement with using GH and Gitter. I don’t love any chat solution but Gitter gets my vote overall.

So… Yes it would be ideal to be incorporated into the rust-lang-nursery org. I don’t know who on the core teams we talk to about approval?..

@aturon, @steveklabnik, @carols10cents, @skade et al, it looks like there are a handful of us interested in forming a lang-runtimes-in-rust WG. Does this sound like an appropriate project to live under the nursery umbrella?




I’ve got a pretty liberal view on these things: if there’s a group of people that want to document and work on a subject related to practices around Rust, form a group.

In general, I find it easier to not have these things under the nursery umbrella (mainly because of the administrative overhead), though. For example, Rust community is not run on rust-lang or the nursery, because that means we can freely assign members, start projects, etc, without involving the rust-lang organisation.

Best, Florian



I’m quite sympathetic to the admin-overhead point that @skade makes.

Further in favor of having our own GitHub organization, we could grow with less friction and clutter - there are already 56 repos in rust-lang-nursery.

I think it possible that a rust-hosted-langs organization (or whatever it might be called) could become a nursery of sorts itself. That is my hope, in fact.

Anybody is welcome to make a better case for being incorporated into rust-lang-nursery, or bikeshed over GitHub organization names! :smile:

1 Like


Anybody is welcome to make a better case for being incorporated into rust-lang-nursery, or bikeshed over GitHub organization names!

In case of a separate organisation I’d just call it “Rust Languages Working Group” or something along those lines. It may be a tad verbose though.



Ooh, completely trivial bikeshed I can get behind!

  • rust-lang-lang
  • rust-meta-lang
  • rust-host-lang
  • rust-compiler-tools
  • rust-dsl
    • -wg
    • -tools
    • -host

I’ve been tinkering with a toy language implementation in Rust, so I’ll be tracking any work here, and share what I do which is sharable. I just put simple-interner on, and having been reintroduced to the concept of lexer modes, may end up making a simple modal lexer generator which works on simple regexes eventually.



It depends on whether this WG is meant to be more broadly about implementing languages in Rust, or about implementing language runtimes in Rust. I originally mis-read the title of this post as being about the former (but am still interested in the latter).



@bjz fair question. My initial interest is in exploring runtimes, as I’m interested in working toward a foundation on which to make it easier to implement whole languages in Rust. I’d like to see a working group focused on this, since the point of a WG is to advance something specific.

If we have our own GH organization, that WG could be just one piece of a broader set of resources where anybody who is creating a language in Rust for any reason, with any level of experience, can communicate - share ideas, ask questions and collaborate as they wish. (I’d love to invite folk who’ve already implemented something to contribute summaries and in-depth technical articles on their implementations, for example.)

Here are my preferences:

  • organization short name: rust-hosted-langs
  • organization long name: Languages Hosted in Rust
  • runtimes working group repo: runtimes-WG plus associated Gitter channel
1 Like


@Marwes, @murarth, @jorendorff, @bvssvni, @fitzgen, @jntrnr - as folk who’ve already implemented something in this space, would any of you be interested in a languages/runtimes-in-Rust group?



Sure. Count me in.

I’m seeing some interesting ideas here and I’d be happy to contribute my ideas and experiences.

1 Like


I’d be interested in something like this in any case.



I’ve created

which hopefully will shape up into something productive. It’s a bit of a blank slate at the moment.


closed #32

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.