On iOS, the code that you've modified runs in an interpreter but code you haven't changed runs the existing fully optimized AOT code that's already in your app.
I'd still call this a success for rust in the wild, if a huge entrenched company like Google would include it so much for a big OS play, even if it shares that room with more established languages.
There are some similarities. The main difference is that Wine is mostly in-process whereas, in this design is mostly out-of-process. I'll add a section on Wine to the "prior art" section of the doc.
The memory model is similar (a flat, linear address space). The OS APIs are quite different. Fuchsia's OS APIs are designed around an object-capability discipline. For example, almost all the syscalls take a zx_handle_t as their first argument, which means they are operations on an object the process has previously been granted access explicitly. In Linux, many OS APIs operate on the "ambient" environment rather than on a specific kernel object.
Congrats on the promo! It didn't quite retain me either, but I was a lowly staff software engineer. I am returning to Google though (back to the Google Fonts team), and it's entirely possible we'll get a chance to work together again.
Congrats on the promo! It didn't retain me (though I didn't get promoted to Principal, so maybe I don't count) but I did enjoy working on Fuchsia. Nice to see much of the syscall design seems to have survived.
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean by "this manifest." The blog post linked above was written by Wayne Piekarski, who is a Developer Advocate for Fuchsia. My role in the project is as a software engineer.
Since you're here, "abarth", it took me several clicks to get to the OWNERS file and all I saw was a list of email addresses. Calling that "governance" is... could we at least get some names and maybe brief bios on these people?
It's not meant to be a place for developer bios. If for no other reason than one developer could appear in many OWNERS files scattered throughout a repo, or in multiple repos, and keeping the bio current across all of them would be a nightmare.
Let me add some context. I was looking at the governance links on the site and found https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/contribute/governance/eng_co... which at the bottom simply says "The current members of the Fuchsia Eng Council are listed in this OWNERS file." I think it would improve the transparency/accountability of the project to have more than a list of email addresses here.
I understand where you're coming from, but that ends up being an inclusion issue in the project. I'm comfortable having my name and bio "out there" on the Internet, but I recognize that's a privilege. Not everyone who contributes to the project will be comfortable doing that.
There's a big difference between licensing code to the world under the terms of Apache 2.0, and licensing code to Google under whatever terms they feel like now or at any time in the future.
I don't think it's an important difference. If you're doing open source at all, you're losing control over what's done with your code, including allowing it to be used by competitors and "bad guys" however you define that.
See (5) and (6) in the open source definition: no discrimination against persons or groups, and no discrimination against fields of endeavor.
If you're unwilling to relinquish control, no open source license is going to be good enough. At best you might scare some risk-adverse companies away from using it, but there are still going to be a lot of people you dislike who can use your software to nefarious ends.
