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

101–110 of 113 posts

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

#101

Post by steveklabnik »

dbaupp wrote: post #99
steveklabnik wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

Semver says that for x.y.z, x == 0 means no guarantees about anything. Cargo currently treats x == 0 as the same as x == 1.

I disagree that this is more useful, personally, for exactly this reason.

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

#102

Post by alienated »

kbenson wrote: post #98
alienated wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 norm…

> I believe it's a holdover from a time when it was entirely acceptable to be dismissive of half the race.

Ironically, when it was entirely acceptable to be dismissive of half the race, separate words were used - explicitly calling out a difference between groups. 'Guys' as a gender neutral term is a relatively recent phenomenon, and in many ways is an equalizing term.

> As such, it's probably appropriate to be at least a little sensitive to the topic

Alternatively you could argue that it's appropriate not to be over-sensitive to common, and innocent, language usage.

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

#103

Post by carols10cents »

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?

Later in this thread, someone even uses it specifically to refer to only men:

> 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.

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

#104

Post by alienated »

carols10cents wrote: post #103
alienated wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Later in this thread, someone even uses it specifically to refer to only men: > 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…

I can happily find a reference (though not in this thread) to a woman using it to refer to a group of all women if you like...

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

#105

Post by dang »

Argorak wrote: post #19

Please note that this is a leak of an early draft for the rust community teams internal usage and should be marked as such. Do consider all numbers undiscussed and not cleaned up for flaws (we'll document the cleanups and the reasonings). -- Florian // rust-community team

We added that to the title and buried the submission. One thing we've learned over the years is that it's fine to wait until a story is actually ready before discussing it.

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

#106

Post by carols10cents »

alienated wrote: post #104
carols10cents wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Later in this thread, someone even uses it specifically to refer to only men: > 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…

I can happily find a reference (though not in this thread) to a woman using it to refer to a group of all women if you like...

Since we both have anecdotes, anecdotes are clearly not going to "solve" this.

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

#108

Post by epoch1970 »

Argorak wrote: post #54
epoch1970 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this survey was very poorly publicized. As somebody who only dabbles in Rust, this is the first I have heard of this survey. I am sure that others are in the same boat as I am. We would have participated, but we learned about it weeks after it closed! Only now do I see the blog article, and a submission here [ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11661056 ] that got no traction. I don't remember seeing any so…

This survey was publicized in all official channels including this week in rust, mentioned in the 1 year of rust announcement, on Hacker News (we cannot control traction), on the subreddit, the users forum, our Twitter account (where it also got huge traction) and literally all our other venues. We got a huge amount of replies. I'm not sure how this is "poorly publicized".

Why was a link apparently not in the most obvious place, on the https://www.rust-lang.org/ web site? A small notice across the top would not have been disruptive, yet I and others would have seen it.

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

#109

Post by kibwen »

epoch1970 wrote: post #108
Argorak wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This survey was publicized in all official channels including this week in rust, mentioned in the 1 year of rust announcement, on Hacker News (we cannot control traction), on the subreddit, the users forum, our Twitter account (where it also got huge traction) and literally all our other venues. We got a huge amount of replies. I'm not sure how this is "poorly publicized".

Why was a link apparently not in the most obvious place, on the https://www.rust-lang.org/ web site? A small notice across the top would not have been disruptive, yet I and others would have seen it.

We put a great deal of effort into publicizing the survey, with a special focus on public spaces and piggybacking on highly-visible announcements. The website's front page sees less traffic than e.g. HN or the Rust subreddit, so it's not hard to imagine why nobody considered putting it there. It certainly wouldn't have hurt to have had it there, and I'm sure we'll consider putting it there for next year's survey, but we're quite happy with the several thousand respondents that we received.

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

#110

Post by dbaupp »

steveklabnik wrote: post #101
dbaupp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Semver says that for x.y.z, x == 0 means no guarantees about anything. Cargo currently treats x == 0 as the same as x == 1. I disagree that this is more useful, personally, for exactly this reason.

Hm, I'm interested to hear why you think 0.1.0 -> 0.1.1 being considered just as dangerous as 0.1.0 -> 0.2.0 is more useful than treating 0.1.0 -> 0.1.1 as "semver-safe" and having only 0.1.0 -> 0.2.0 be breaking.
Post reply on HN