Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Results of Rust Survey 2016 – early draft for internal usage

docs.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 113 posts

Re: Results of Rust Survey 2016 – early draft for internal usage

#91

Post by alienated »

adrusi wrote: post #79
dochtman wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the language will benefit from having more diverse feedback.

Does anybody actually believe that diverse cultural backgrounds are at all relevant to ideas about programming language design or compiler programming? Claims that diversity is good for project organization sound believable, but I see no reason to think the diversity of background has any impact on technical contributions. There is no moral obligation to have a diverse group, just to have a group that is tolerant of…

> but I see no reason to think the diversity of background has any impact on technical contributions

Exactly this. The internet is the great equalizer. There is no need for anyone to know anything about me unless I choose to bring it up.

For a technical project, conducted and run over the internet, my work can stand entirely on its merits in a way that would not be possible in a regular office environment.

Re: Results of Rust Survey 2016 – early draft for internal usage

#92

Post by badsock »

lbn wrote: post #49
viraptor wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hostile may be jumping to conclusions. It's a small number, and it's a self-selected sample. Small change in any of the numbers will result in big ratio change. Unless someone actually claims hostile behaviour, why expect it? Either way, the trans population is very much overrepresented in the survey. You took one of the sources from the link which claims 0.3%. The next source which I would trust (DSM-5 stats) claims…

The reason I said hostile is that in most discussions on Hacker News and Reddit a lot of people argue that the only reason women are so under-represented in tech is that all the guys are very hostile to women. This survey goes against that. For some reason they refuse to believe that some things are more interesting to women than men and vice versa.

In different cultures (e.g. Russia), and different time periods (e.g. the 80's), the level of interest and participation from women is/was much, much higher. I would say that's a pretty objective reason for believing that it's cultural and not biological.

What I find hard to believe is that some people don't think that women get treated differently than men, or that that wouldn't matter when it comes to people choosing to participate in certain communities.

Re: Results of Rust Survey 2016 – early draft for internal usage

#93

Post by sanderjd »

nutheracc wrote: post #63
kushti wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This part of survey is really weird and full of American racist bigotry. What does "Person of color" mean considering people all around the globe? In Africa or India whites are super-minorities so should they vote as "persons of color"?

Yes, minority is geographical, yet somehow it's come to mean not white male, a western view point. Not sure how female keeps getting classified as minority.

It just means underrepresented in the computing technology community.

Re: Results of Rust Survey 2016 – early draft for internal usage

#94

Post by alienated »

carols10cents wrote: post #90
alienated wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right, and I apologize. It was done to belabor a point. Namely that for a community that aims to be welcoming, belaboring that point can actually make it less welcoming. It is taxing to participate in an environment where common language usage causes people to take offense where none is given or intended.

Using the word "guys" to describe Rust developers is not offensive; it's just incorrect.

How is it incorrect - 'guys' (plural) is not gender specific, and refers to groups of people regardless of gender.

In addition to general usage anecdotes (of women using this word to address groups of women), I'm happy to provide dictionary citations if you'd like?

Re: Results of Rust Survey 2016 – early draft for internal usage

#95

Post by EugeneOZ »

Argorak wrote: post #78
EugeneOZ wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

REST API for Angular SPA and Ionic mobile apps. Few months ago I wrote this article: https://medium.com/@eugeniyoz/restful-api-in-rust-impression... A lot of things between me and Rust has changed since then, but all changes are positive :)

Would you like to be featured on https://www.rust-lang.org/friends.html ? Feel free to click the link on the bottom.

Thanks, our logo is there long time ago :)

Re: Results of Rust Survey 2016 – early draft for internal usage

#96

Post by steveklabnik »

Manishearth wrote: post #88
mook wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't the large portion of people using unstable libraries / things depending on unstable internals mean that the versioning isn't covering a large enough API? I feel like blaming the user isn't really going to help make the ecosystem more stable. (Context: I went through the tutorial at one point and got really fed up that it wasn't possible to do it without involving crates because there wasn't any random number…

I wasn't talking about the stdlib, I was talking about crates. Rust tries to keep its stdlib small so that crates can evolve on their own (and have alternatives). I think that's a valid choice, just because needing to fetch a crate for random numbers is different doesn't necessarily mean it is bad. It also means that the versioning can be different -- the URL library can make breaking changes if it wants with a major…

  > Sometimes, a breaking change in the ecosystem is marked as a minor version bump,
... because it's still a young ecosystem, and a lot of packages aren't at 1.0 yet, so this is valid per semver.

Re: Results of Rust Survey 2016 – early draft for internal usage

#97

Post by Argorak »

EugeneOZ wrote: post #95
Argorak wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you like to be featured on https://www.rust-lang.org/friends.html ? Feel free to click the link on the bottom.

Thanks, our logo is there long time ago :)

Ah, Rust is so big I'm losing track :).

Re: Results of Rust Survey 2016 – early draft for internal usage

#98

Post by kbenson »

alienated wrote: post #94
carols10cents wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the word "guys" to describe Rust developers is not offensive; it's just incorrect.

How is it incorrect - 'guys' (plural) is not gender specific, and refers to groups of people regardless of gender. In addition to general usage anecdotes (of women using this word to address groups of women), I'm happy to provide dictionary citations if you'd like?

"Guys" is a fairly complex term[1]. Its common gender association changes when used plurally from male (when used singularly) to non-gendered. Like "man", when used in place of "humanity", I believe it's a holdover from a time when it was entirely acceptable to be dismissive of half the race. As such, it's probably appropriate to be at least a little sensitive to the topic, since it's not just a matter or speech norms, but a reference to past inequality.

1: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/11816/is-guy-gend...

Re: Results of Rust Survey 2016 – early draft for internal usage

#99

Post by dbaupp »

steveklabnik wrote: post #96
Manishearth wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't talking about the stdlib, I was talking about crates. Rust tries to keep its stdlib small so that crates can evolve on their own (and have alternatives). I think that's a valid choice, just because needing to fetch a crate for random numbers is different doesn't necessarily mean it is bad. It also means that the versioning can be different -- the URL library can make breaking changes if it wants with a major…

> Sometimes, a breaking change in the ecosystem is marked as a minor version bump, ... because it's still a young ecosystem, and a lot of packages aren't at 1.0 yet, so this is valid per semver.

To be clear, you're saying moving from 0.x.y to 0.(x+1).z is valid to be a breaking change, right?

(For other readers, Rust/Cargo uses a---more useful---variant of SemVer where an upgrade from one version to another from assumed to work if the most-significant non-zero numbers are identical, whereas SemVer says that any version number change pre-1.0 could be a breaking change, even 0.1.0 to 0.1.1.)

Re: Results of Rust Survey 2016 – early draft for internal usage

#100

Post by dbaupp »

kushti wrote: post #33
eximius wrote: post #6

Hmmm. That 20% of Rust users identify as part of an 'underrepresented group' does not seem like poor number. I would naively guess that it is a larger percentage than exists in the overall technical population. If that's correct, then bravo Rust! (If anyone knows about numbers along those lines, I'd love to hear about it.)

This part of survey is really weird and full of American racist bigotry. What does "Person of color" mean considering people all around the globe? In Africa or India whites are super-minorities so should they vote as "persons of color"?

You may be interested in the discussion on this topic from when the survey was posted: https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/4ikawg/launching_the_...
Post reply on HN