But who is "they"? What does it mean to be "on the same side as Rust"? What if Rust maintainers disagree? Being on a side suggests an unwillingness to part ways, which is more commitment than merely agreeing to a set of beliefs at some time. If Rust is a worthy rock in the political sphere for the moment, then there is no trouble in believing alike, but only for the moment. Every actor should prove themselves constantly, not to be orbited.
>What does it mean to be "on the same side as Rust"?
There is a stated and auctioned stance the rust foundation poses, and they are saying they align with that. At this point if you can see their point the communication fault is yours.
>Being on a side suggests an unwillingness to part ways
No it doesn't.
>If Rust is a worthy rock in the political sphere for the moment
I have to assume their politics is more intimate to them than the maintainers of a programming language, and that they used it here because the conversation we are having is around rust.
You used "they" several times, so I took a certain usage to mean "Rust", and I was asking who specifically "Rust" entails. Who defines the "Rust beliefs"?
> > Being on a side suggests an unwillingness to part ways
"Suggests", as in, "it is likely implied that" (emphasis on "likely"), though I should've been more clear.
> I have to assume their politics is more intimate to them than the maintainers of a programming language, and that they used it here because the conversation we are having is around rust.
The primary topic is politics.
---
I find issue with the framing of "taking sides". I hear it and think of fragmentation for the sake of fragmentation. There is a distinct difference in saying "I side with Rust" and "I agree with Rust", the latter being reducible to "Rust believes [a belief]" and "I believe [the same belief]". The former can be used to mean the latter, but I choose to focus on the likely implication.
