71–80 of 555 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I share the spirit. OSS is all about forking. My company works with a very very niche TypeScript fork as well. Everyone should be free to work and contribute in the way he prefers for whatever reasons.
Forking a language that aims to be the long term stable systems language for a very large part of the IT landscape isn't a good thing.
Interesting, how many negative comments this gets. People seem to love monoculture run by committees. This is exactly what OSS is all about. Take a code base and develop it into different directions. Both code and organization. And "natural selection" will have some forks die and others strife.
This is not about code, it's about standards. As long as I don't have to have 2 Rusts to deal with, I'm fine with this, but right now at least the branding isn't supporting that.
I believe they’re hugely responsible for most of the adoption of Rust and have no doubt they’d see continued success anywhere they choose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It worked for io.js when they split off from node.js. When io.js was re-merged in with node, the project was all the better for it. They ultimately improved Node's release schedule and cadence, governance, etc.
does the io.js fork still exist? If it is merged back into the main project or left unmaintained the fork failed and died.
For anyone critizing this: From the trademark bullshit to the conference drama, it's clear at this point that someone with influence in the Rust foundation is behaving like an asshole and damaging the project. That can happen in open source, see Stallman and others. It's also clear that others at the Rust foundation tolerate this behavior, downplay it, don't understand the impact, don't want to go against a "respecte…
The readme doesn't mention the reason for the fork, who made it and who governs it. Which would be the most interesting info. Edit: apperently there is a main site (https://crablang.org/) with more info. The most important piece of info is missing though: names.
Interesting, how many negative comments this gets. People seem to love monoculture run by committees. This is exactly what OSS is all about. Take a code base and develop it into different directions. Both code and organization. And "natural selection" will have some forks die and others strife.
In 99% of cases having one project however bad it is, means less confusion and more stability than several (It's funny and scary how this is exactly the one and only argument for dictatorship).
For the good of the project long term, evolution through selection might be best. But it's certainly not best for the short to medium term if talent is split, and it's not great for users to have to wonder which fork to use.
For anyone critizing this: From the trademark bullshit to the conference drama, it's clear at this point that someone with influence in the Rust foundation is behaving like an asshole and damaging the project. That can happen in open source, see Stallman and others. It's also clear that others at the Rust foundation tolerate this behavior, downplay it, don't understand the impact, don't want to go against a "respecte…
> That can happen in open source, see Stallman and others. Could you elaborate on because I'm increasingly seeing Stallman being thrown around as a bogeyman who impeded FOSS progress for years if not decades and I really dislike this trend. It seems that his personal views (which I do not support) and eccentricity is being conflated with his contributions to FOSS. I will preface this by noting that this is "my belief…
I think this was behind the rather unsuccessful attempts to cancel him a few years ago, which cast a shadow over his reputation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It worked for io.js when they split off from node.js. When io.js was re-merged in with node, the project was all the better for it. They ultimately improved Node's release schedule and cadence, governance, etc.
does the io.js fork still exist? If it is merged back into the main project or left unmaintained the fork failed and died.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All this does is creating unnecessary drama surrounding the Rust foundation. They are doing a fantastic job of creating drama all by themselves. I don't use Rust, but the constant childish bickering has turned me away from even caring to.
Many years ago, I read a comment on Slashdot saying "the fact of a programming language having a "code of conduct" makes it ripe for everlasting drama and politics." It made sense then and it makes sense now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All this does is creating unnecessary drama surrounding the Rust foundation. They are doing a fantastic job of creating drama all by themselves. I don't use Rust, but the constant childish bickering has turned me away from even caring to.
Many years ago, I read a comment on Slashdot saying "the fact of a programming language having a "code of conduct" makes it ripe for everlasting drama and politics." It made sense then and it makes sense now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many years ago, I read a comment on Slashdot saying "the fact of a programming language having a "code of conduct" makes it ripe for everlasting drama and politics." It made sense then and it makes sense now.
Every community has a code of conduct, it's just that some of them are explicit about it.