Setting our vision for the 2017 cycle

As I mentioned in my One Year of Rust post I think the following priorities should be considered and I wanted to expand them here:

  • RFC’s and the transparency with the community are a mess. Not everyone has the time or inclination to read them over and this leads to things like “When is MIR landing? Is it turned on?” Some RFC’s were accepted long ago but no work has been done on them. Having a dashboard that shows what RFC’s have been accepted, which ones are actually being worked on, and target dates would go a long way for Rust. Having a place to point users would really help people have a clear understanding with what’s coming down the line.
  • Rust has the possibility to replace C and C++ in the embedded systems department but things like #[no_std] don’t work and having to have a ton of workarounds just to get it to work is frustrating. Workarounds doesn’t make embedded dev feel like a first class citizen at all and not focusing on this area of Rust is in my opinion a huge mistake and a large oversight since we’ve been focusing so much on stability and things like MIR. Going forward into 2017 making it easy to cross compile to various embedded systems is one area I think we should really focus on.
  • As for crates we just don’t have a lot of 1.0 crates. Trying to get people to go 1.0 is probably too hard and not something the core team should focus on. However, I think if we rallied the community to stabilize important crates to 1.0 I think would be highly beneficial. Some crates I think we should get the community to stabilize to 1.0 in the next year would be Ring, Diesel, Iron, and Serde for instance. Large projects that provide critical features should be highlighted, helped in creating a 1.0 roadmap, subdividing those tasks into issues, and then letting the community plow through them to stabilize the crate. The hard part will be identifying the crates we should prioritize for stabilization and working with current project maintainers to setup these roadmaps and issues for users to work on.
  • Tooling is really important and while we have an RFC for IDE support accepted no work has been done on it and I think this is something we should work on actually implementing.
  • Custom Derive is something we need badly because too many crates like Serde depend on it and having to use Syntex to get it to work is god awful to set up. Prioritizing this will greatly benefit being able to use larger libraries in production since they would then be able to compile on stable rather than nightly. Too many of the good libraries are on nightly making the use of stable unreasonable and hard if not impossible to use in production depending on company standards.
  • I think we should help new users learn Rust but I don’t really have any good ideas to throw behind this besides saying we need it.

Between all of these and what was already mentioned I think 2017 will have a solid enough roadmap of things to do both with the community and the core team in terms of things we need to do.


I want to post something more substantial in a bit, but until then:

Interesting, I feel like it's very not appropriate for that audience! There is not nearly enough hand-holding for that. We do target people who are new to statically typed languages, or systems languages, but not programming generally.

(Opinions can of course differ; I wanted to communicate how i think of it)


I went back and took a look. I agree, I don’t think it’s a good book for people new to programming. And if your intentions were indeed geared towards people who are coming from a dynamically typed language I think you nailed it. That being said, do you think there is room for improvement for targeting programmers coming from a statically typed background? C, C++, Java? And if so, do you have ideas for how to approach such a problem? I would be interested in possibly helping with such a project if there are some good ideas.


Can you say a bit more about what you are thinking of when you say “project infrastructure”? When reading what @aturon wrote, I was primarily thinking of things like bors and our own internal CI infrastructure, but it’s not clear to me how that would help adoption (except indirectly by making Rust better).

I feel like we had worked out a fairly decent story here at some point, but we’ve stalled in terms of pushing the various pieces. Specialization and “fields in traits” were intended to be starting points, for example. I’ve got to revisit the “fields in traits” RFC in any case…


I like these ideas, and also a similar guide mentioned earlier in this thread “If you’re used to inheritance, here’s what to do in Rust instead” kind of guide. Perhaps my concern with this approach was making such guides accessible. Should we just let these guides appear on the interwebs naturally? Should there be a curated list of guides? What’s the story here? And for someone coming from another language, where do they start?

1 Like

If it frees up the core team’s time because more of what they do is automated I could see how that would contribute indirectly to Rust but beyond that I don’t see how it would increase adoption beyond more features being created.

These vision statements are really good, and I think cover all of the important bases.

On learning curve, I think it’s important we also consider significant investment in tooling, i.e. rustdoc. I’ve heard @steveklabnik mention it doesn’t get much love, and that feels like a pity. One example: the Windows docs for std are currently not available online, because rustdoc will only build the docs for the current platform (or really just the currently applicable set of conditional compilation conditions). How are Windows/OS X users supposed to learn std in this situation? Another: how to document module items whose definition depends on conditional compilation stuff? Do I have to copy docs for each platform?

If the current order of vision statement implies prioritization, I would prioritize the FFI story more. In trying to sell Rust, being able to integrate well with already existing/used technology is incredibly important in making an exploration of Rust as a technology low-risk.

One other thing that came up in threads on this forum recently: it would be in an interesting challenge to try to organize a Rust fund to try and help fund the library ecosystem. I came up with a concept around “turning precious metal into Rust”, with a yearly pitch to stated Friends of Rust (I thought up all kinds of puns, too, but forget them) to contribute on the order of 1k/10k/25k to a funding team that would then approve grant proposals from the community. It would maybe hinge on demonstrating the community’s independence from Mozilla, to some extent?

1 Like

Or like making it much simpler & shorter defining an unsecure-but-fast hashing.

This seems a nice and simple idea.


Isn’t this short enough? You just have to use the desired hasher instead.

1 Like

Could you elaborate? What about no_std doesn’t work?

It’s not easy and not short.

So, I haven't spoken with the docs team about all of this yet, given that it was just posted, but here's my own personal thought:

For the docs team, I would hope that we can manage to switch from reactive to proactive.

What do I mean by this? Well, ever since I came on board, I've been in 'reactive mode.' "Here's the language and standard library, get to work." Consider it like a consumer/producer problem:

The "producer" are people working on things: the language, libraries, etc. Once they've produced their code, it goes into the buffer. Then, the consumer is writing the docs: something gets popped off the queue, worked on, and documented.

The problem is, with many more producers than consumers, the buffer fills up. This leads to bugs like Ensure accepted RFCs are all in the manual and elsewhere · Issue #20137 · rust-lang/rust · GitHub, and you can see what happened there.

So, what to do? Well, now that it's not just me, I'm hoping that we as a group can finish off the backlog in the buffer. Once we do, we can stop fighting fires and start taking a more pro-active stance on docs. Some of that is tied into all the other goals, for example. So like, let's take one of them: FFI. We could have a whole little mini-book on FFI and Rust, and how to make it good. But I don't have time for that; the standard library still has functions with no docs. This would be the "proactive" mode: we're focusing on what docs the ecosystem needs to have, rather than just catching up on a huge backlog.

The next level is getting rid of the producer/consumer issue entirely: @chriskrycho opened RFC: Require documentation for all new features. by chriskrycho · Pull Request #1636 · rust-lang/rfcs · GitHub , which basically says "nothing can ever go into the buffer". In order to manage that, we as a team will have to help others help us, by getting more people to write docs, even if they don't usually write them. We want to keep high standards, yet not let that block actually shipping.

Now, for some replies:

Could you elaborate on what you mean here? What doesn't work about it?

I think this post by @wycats is a big part of it:

One argument passed for the hasher isn't short enough? What would be your ideal syntax here?


I think this post covers a lot of the problems one runs into when turning off std. I would consider making an OS as bare metal as you could get and something you would run into when working on embdeded development systems which have no OS. One shouldn’t have to use things like ralloc just to get it to work. These are the kinds of problems I meant with workarounds. Like you can use no_std and there are solutions but they’re not baked into Rust without finagling.

One thing I wonder, actually - how feasible would it be to (in essence) do “symbolic execution” of #[cfg] directives? Specifically, have rustdoc “branch” on encountering a #[cfg] directive, generate documentation under both, and generate fragments for each such section? That could then allow selecting from a menu of #[cfg] options when reading the docs.

In terms of phrasing this as a vision statement, “Users of any platform should be able to easily read the documentation relevant to a crate as they would actually use it.”


Do you have a complete correct up-to-date usage example somewhere on the Rust site or on the internet? Just showing the first a step and asking “to use the desired hasher instead” isn’t enough, in my opinion. In the page I’d like to see a complete example of fast hashing of a simple struct (like a struct { a: char, b: f64 }). Once the example is complete, I think the resulting code is not short and not simple.

I am not a Rust programmer. Only knowing some C++. Not sure if my idea makes any sense…

I have heard regarding the question: “Can Rust do OOP?”. The answer seems to be yes and no. There is this classic book “Design Patterns” from the gang of four. My idea is a guide that says when you want to implement a certain design pattern (from this book or other newer design patterns) what is the best way in Rust to implement it? When it is not possible to implement it then what should be done in this case to achieve the same good code quality or the same goals of a design pattern? The guide should at least cover the design patterns in the book mentioned. The more the better.


I assume you’re specifically referring to the “fixing linker errors” section? That seems to me to be a totally reasonable thing when you’re working bare-metal. In my experience, regardless of whether you’re working in C, assembly or Rust, you always need some boilerplate code and linker scripts when doing OS dev.

1 Like

I would love to see firmer support for the existing non-x86 architectures. I feel a bit guilty that I’m only building i686 and x86_64 for Fedora so far, but these are the only Tier 1 targets. Perhaps I should bite the Tier 2 bullet for aarch64 and armv7, but the rest don’t have bootstrap binaries for rustc and cargo, especially ppc64 and ppc64le I’d hope for next.

I can see that. I guess it would just be nice to have it just work depending on the target platform without having to do the extra bit of linking. I.E. if compiling for arduino using no std rustc knows what to do without having to do that extra work. Making it more accessible to people who just want to code on a system without having to figure out how to configure it properly could go a long way towards adoption of Rust in that ecosystem.