Readit NewsPools near me (New Zealand) have ‘no bombing’ signs. I wonder if the jump-into-pool-holding-knees manoeuvre is called ‘bombing’ in German?
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=thesuperbigfrog&next...
The thing here is: it would be harmful if we, Ferrous Systems, claimed or even be confused with a more general Rust spec. That's a) the privilege of the Rust project and b) problematic if consumers were to understand it that way.
However, I'm also frustrated with "everything is customer funded", so we're looking at ways to make this things happen.
Sorry to be vague.
https://www.lynx.com/press-releases/rust-compiler-supporthttps://ferrous-systems.com/blog/how-we-built-our-embedded-w...
Porting Rust to RTOSes is reasonably easy.
Is your pricing in line with the norms in this sector? It seems really cheap to me.
But on the other side, there's so many that would buy if it were more accessible.
Is this one of those standards which involve a lot of questionnaires and box-ticking, but has negligible effect on the bug-free-ness of the resulting software?
The ISO 26262 is certainly an effective standard. The boxes to tick are of the kind "do you have your requirements written down?" ("will someone later know what this thing does?").
So, we do have to tick boxes, but we're free to pick on how to tick boxes :). What TÜV now certified is that our box-ticking process is fine.
I have absolutely no problem with framing this as box-ticking in some way, but that box-ticking has _meaning_. However, on an existing tool, that means you write the spec (spec.ferrocene.dev) and check if everything has a test implemented. Yep, that's an amount of pretty dumb and repetitive work. And pretty often, on widely-used software, for the happy path, you'll find that it's rather bug-free. So, yes, you tick the box, but you now know that this is in order.
In other cases and on less popular platforms, we frequently find issues like e.g. changes in code size between versions (which could hint to a bug). And it's not just super-niche targets, the last version had a size regression on certain arm targets.
Details on some of the fixes over the last years can be found here: https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/how-ferrocene-improves-rust.... We find a lot of things in corners and better ways to improve the Rust compiler.
As we're a downstream to Rust, we're actually incentivised to push changes upstream with preference, so yes, we contribute to the general quality of the Rust compiler (also of older versions) and with that to bug-free-ness of the resulting software.
So, we're over here, ticking boxes, informing parties when one box doesn't tick.
That's really cool. Sometimes I think about donating to the PSF, but I don't really care about PyCon.
https://thefortunate.blog/diversification-is-the-future-for-...
> Out of USD4.5MM of revenue for the PSF in 2019, around 63% of it came from PyCon. USD1.9MM was the costs of having PyCon, which means that for every dollar spent on PyCon, the PSF gets back 1.50 dollars.
https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2020/03/psfs-projected-2020-fin...
Obviously, the revenue has sharply dropped for a time because of COVID, but I'd be surprised if PyCon is run at a loss nowadays.
So you can assume none of your sponsorship money goes to running PyCon.