> When the biggest companies in the world are each giving you hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, you probably don't want to upset them.

Don’t forget that those money ultimately go to individuals, that often willingly sacrifice their opinions and positions for the fat paycheque.

The author has a point. You STILL need a github account to publish to crates.io.

TL;DR; the author feels betrayed because the Rust leadership didn't take a strong stance against LLMs like the Zig team did.

IMHO LLMs are causing lots of issues in the software world, especially in the open source communities but I don't think Zig's blanket rejection of everything AI-related is a good thing.

> Meanwhile, Rust took its time.

Yes, this is the difference between a BDFL. A single person can make a decision faster, than a group of people. And consensus often leaves most people a bit miffed.

Again, the issue starts when the dictator grows mad and starts making decisions that make every contributor uncomfortable.

> To my horror, many software projects were accepting LLM-generated code. I had thought LLMs were unpopular among developers.

Why would a really stochastic auto-complete and analyzer be disliked by developers? LLMs are a useful tool, sometimes, but they aren't the <WE WILL REPLACE ALL WORKFORCE BY 2028> levels of hype that current frontier labs need to justify their costs.

> But Memory Safety!

I'd be genuinely flabbergasted if Zig ends up as safe as Rust without any overhead. So, no, adding Fil-C doesn't count. We have memory safety with overhead. We call it Java/C#/JavaScript/Go/<INSERT VM LANG HERE>.

The money contributed to the Rust Foundation by large corporate members supports initiatives[0] that benefit all users of Rust, and I am happy for it. The slow and deliberative approach the Foundation took to crafting the AI policy, and even the hedging language in the policy itself, are indicators of a healthy open organization. The author's scorn shows immaturity.

  [0]: https://rustfoundation.org/#initiatives