Resigning as Asahi Linux project lead

Post by Ar-Curunir » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 6:03 PM UTC

jstimpfle wrote: post #224

Certhas wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also not truthful because many of the Rust maintainers are long time C contributors. Marcan also linked to this resignation of a Rust Maintainer: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240828211117.9422-1-wedsonaf@... which references this fantastic exchange: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiPp9YEBV0Q&t=1529s I am not a C person, or a kernel level person, I just watch this from the sideline to learn something every now…

It's practically impossible to document all your assumptions in the type system. Attempting to do so results in code that is harder to read and write. You have a choice between code that statically asserts all assumptions in the type system but doesn't exist, is slow, or a pain to work with, and code that is beautiful, obvious, performant, but does contain the occasional bug. I am not against static safety, but there…

Post by mcosta » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 6:03 PM UTC

uhgrippa wrote: post #235

nindalf wrote: post #93

Marcan links to an email by Ted Tso'o ( https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250208204416.GL1130956@mit.ed... ) that is interesting to read. Although it starts on a polarising note ("thin blue line"), it does a good job of explaining the difficulties that Linux maintainers face and why they make the choices they do. It makes sense to be extremely adversarial about accepting code because they're on the hook for maintaining…

These are often the same classification of individual who tend to modify their viewpoints towards “change is progressing rapidly in an area that I don’t understand and this scares me.” Anytime an expert in a particular area has their expertise challenged or even threatened by a new technology it is perfectly human to react in a way that is defensive towards the perceived threat. Part of growth as a human is recognizi…

Post by vlovich123 » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 6:04 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #349

judofyr wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "which is actively hostile to a second Rust compiler implementation" - except that isn't true? Historically the Rust community has been extremely hostile towards gccrs. Many have claimed that the work would be detrimental to Rust as a language since it would split the language in two (despite gccrs constantly claiming they're not trying to do that). I'm not sure if it was an opinion shared by the core team, but if…

The LKML quote is alleging that the upstream language developers (as opposed to random users on Reddit) are opposed to the idea of multiple implementations, which is plainly false, as evidenced by the link to the official blog post celebrating gccrs. Ted T'so is speaking from ignorance here.

Post by School-Cotton » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 6:05 PM UTC

purplesyringa wrote: post #347

School-Cotton wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any backwards incompatibilities are explicitly opt-in through the edition system, or fixing a compiler bug. This is a very persistent myth, but it’s wrong. Adding any public method to any impl can break BC (because its name might conflict with a user-defined method in a trait), and the Rust project adds methods to standard library impls all the time.

This is true, strictly speaking, but rarely causes problems. Inherent methods are prioritized over trait methods, so this only causes problems if two traits suddenly define a single method, and the method is invoked in an ambiguous context. This is a rare situation, and std thrives to prevent it. For example, in [1], a certain trait method was called extend_one instead of push for this reason. Crater runs are also us…

Post by jodrellblank » Thu, Feb 13, 2025, 6:05 PM UTC

jorvi wrote: post #305

permo-w wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"These people are members of a community who care about where they live... So what I hear is people caring very loudly at me." -- Leslie Knope that's a very healthy and - I feel - correct attitude towards this kind of criticism. I love when wisdom comes from stupid places.

Its quite a well-known wisdom. I think someone in one of Nintendo or Sony's studios has said it too, in the form of: a complaint is worth twice a compliment. Satisfied customers will tell you they think your stuff is great, but dissatisfied customers will be able to hone in on exactly where the problem is. You can even extend this to personal life: if someone tells you your shabby car doesn't fit with the nice suits…