Describing the outcomes in terms of functions over shell states, as you have, is the quickest and most transparent way of demonstrating that they aren’t the same.

The article was a fun “scenic route” to the same conclusion, though.

Oh so you’re saying the companies are not altruistic? I’d agree. I thought you were saying that the people making the FOSS were not being altruistic.

How does a corporation using it obstruct independent developers from using it under the same license? I don’t see a compelling case for them being mutually exclusive

And they are mutually exclusive, in your eyes?

Is giving away your software in a way that doesn’t use a copyleft license, not altruistic? Seems like a pretty narrow definition.

Which mail provider are you using?

The lack of ABI stability in Rust means they don’t have to commit to language changes that may prove to be unpopular or poorly designed later.

Swift went through the same growing pains and, IMO, has suffered for it a bit with even quite basic code often needing lots of availability checks. This may seem counter intuitive but Swift is in the unique(-ish) position of having to serve both a huge corporation demanding significant evolution on a regular basis and a cross platform community that don’t want to write an encyclopedia every time a major version of the language is rolled out.

Rust doesn’t have this issue and I think it’s right for them to allow themselves the freedom to correct language design errors until it gains more traction as a systems language - and it’s quite exciting that we’re seeing that traction happen now in realtime!