91–100 of 555 posts
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.
Stable project structure is a requirement to survive as an enterprise language, which everyone tries to make it into. It can live with the forks, but only as a toy language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Always names with generic words which complicates the search. Rust metal, Rust the game, Rust what. And now Crab cooking, Crab fauna I'm absolutely convinced that software names are a conspiracy for to bring users to the threshold that will make them weep.
Many of the non-generic ones are even worse. C? C#? C++? D? Unable to look up "C++ language". The following search tokens are too short: C
The other two…well, either viewpoint would have excellent arguments pro/con.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agree on all points. Something needs to change in the Rust foundation fundamentally. But as far as forks go this one seems quite low effort. Does the tactic work if the other side knows what you’re doing? From Ashley Williams, former founding member of the Rust Foundation (I don’t support her pretentious tone here)[1]: > "I don't think any of the folks who are part of it are language designers," said Williams. "They…
> I don't think any of the folks who are part of it are language designers Ugh. Hate this sentiment that some people are language designers, and others simply aren't . So pretentious. If someone is designing a language they're a language designer, they don't need your approval. And yes, designing the distribution, branding, community, and leadership around a fork of an existing language counts as designing a language…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust has been rather monolithic. There is no such thing as a rust spec, just whatever the rust compiler does. This is a good first step to making it into a language people work in rather than just blog about.
Compiler behavior is the only thing that matters in any language, as per Hyrum's law. A spec is a useful tool for discussing and building a language, but don't confuse the map for the territory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust has been rather monolithic. There is no such thing as a rust spec, just whatever the rust compiler does. This is a good first step to making it into a language people work in rather than just blog about.
A code-identical fork with a different name for trademark reasons is not going to make the Rust team write a spec. Look to the GCC Rust implementation for that. Also, people already do work in Rust. It's in the Linux kernel right now .
Here is a good walk-through of the changes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gutR_LNoZw0 I don't particularly care about Rust but one of the reasons I've hesitated to learn / use it was because the project seemed like it was led by woke people that pushed politics into the programming space which imo is completely unnecessary. One thing I've learned by experience is that people who push their political agenda into eve…
Using a programming language is 99.9% technical work. As long as they don't go out of their way e.g. to make rustc compile your project wrong if you have files with political content with opposing orientation on your computer, how does any of that matter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
He doesnt seem to be liked by some of the more powerful, corporate entities in tech, probably because he pushes some agendas that are somewhat anti-their-profits. I think this was behind the rather unsuccessful attempts to cancel him a few years ago, which cast a shadow over his reputation.
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…
Agree on all points. Something needs to change in the Rust foundation fundamentally. But as far as forks go this one seems quite low effort. Does the tactic work if the other side knows what you’re doing? From Ashley Williams, former founding member of the Rust Foundation (I don’t support her pretentious tone here)[1]: > "I don't think any of the folks who are part of it are language designers," said Williams. "They…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason slashdot is no longer relevant as the go-to tech discussion site is just because everyone who loves hating on "modern" things like CoC stayed, and everyone else left. These days it would be more strange to see a major project NOT have a CoC than seeing one. There is drama and politics in any large org whether or not there is a CoC or not.
Slashdot was sold to another media company which had other priorities. Are you aware of its "redesign" drama strictly followed by that same new leadership? Many users left then and there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
does the io.js fork still exist? If it is merged back into the main project or left unmaintained the fork failed and died.
You are implying that the only measure of success for a fork is for it to exist indefinitely. If the goal of io.js was to improve Node's governance model, which appears to be the case, then I would consider it a success.
The fork died.
that is the point. goal or no goal.