FWIW, this is from a commit message / source code of Rust-GCC (which is expected to be merged into the mainline GCC later).

@bugaevc As I understand it, there is no formal specification of Rust at the moment. That would imply that any version of Rust is a local version, no?

@bugaevc I meant that even Rust as released by the Rust Foundation is *their* version of the language, not an official version per se. Can there be an official version of a programming language if there are implementations, but no formal standard?

@mpjgregoire can there be an official version of Linux if there's an implementation, but not a public standard?

@mpjgregoire there is some difference between Rust the language, and the dialect of Rust accepted by rustc. (For instance, rustc supports a bunch of its own private attributes).

What you could say is that Rust the language is not formally defined; which is the same thing as saying the formal spec is not yet finished.

@bugaevc @mpjgregoire Your point stands but Linux might not be the best example, since there are public standards like Linux Standard Base (LSB)

@robby @bugaevc For programs in general, the official version is whatever is realeased by the main developer; but when it comes to programming languages, I think they need an official definition that's different from the implementation.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!