APT Rust requirement raises questions
1–10 of 508 posts
Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions
#2[flagged]
Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions
#3Interesting how instead of embracing Rust as a required toolchain for APT, the conversation quickly devolved into
"why don't we just build a tool that can translate memory-safe Rust code into memory-unsafe C code? Then we don't have to do anything."
This feels like swimming upstream just for spite.
Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions
#4[flagged]
Maybe they are just really tired of having to deal with people who constantly object and throw every possible obstacle they can on the way.
Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions
#5I remembered reading about this news back when that first message was posted on the mailing list, and didn't think much of it then (rust has been worming its way into a lot of places over the past few years, just one more thing I tack on for some automation)...
But seeing the maintainer works for Canonical, it seems like the tail (Ubuntu) keeps trying to wag the dog (Debian ecosystem) without much regard for the wider non-Ubuntu community.
I think the whole message would be more palatable if it weren't written as a decree including the dig on "retro computers", but instead positioned only on the merits of the change.
As an end user, it doesn't concern me too much, but someone choosing to add a new dependency chain to critical software plumbing does, at least slightly, if not done for very good reason.
Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions
#6[flagged]
I think you'll experience some pushback on the assertion that that particular quote has a lot of arrogance or disdain in it.
Building large legacy projects can be difficult and tapping into a thriving ecosystem of packages might be a good thing. But it's also possible to have "shiny object" or "grass is greener" syndrome.
Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions
#7[flagged]
Maybe they are just really tired of having to deal with people who constantly object and throw every possible obstacle they can on the way.
No, honestly Rust has just really crappy attitude and culture. Even as a person who should naturally like Rust and I do plan to learn it despite that I find these people really grating.
Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions
#8Interesting how instead of embracing Rust as a required toolchain for APT, the conversation quickly devolved into "why don't we just build a tool that can translate memory-safe Rust code into memory-unsafe C code? Then we don't have to do anything." This feels like swimming upstream just for spite.
All compilers do anyways is translate from one language specification to another. There's nothing magical about Rust or any specific architecture target. The compiler of a "memory safe" language like Rust could easily output assembly with severe issues in the presence of a compiler bug. There's no difference between compiling to assembly vs. C in that regard.
Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions
#9[flagged]
I think you'll experience some pushback on the assertion that that particular quote has a lot of arrogance or disdain in it. Building large legacy projects can be difficult and tapping into a thriving ecosystem of packages might be a good thing. But it's also possible to have "shiny object" or "grass is greener" syndrome.
> I think you'll experience some pushback on the assertion that that particular quote has a lot of arrogance or disdain in it.
It's just a roundabout way of saying "anything that isn't running Rust isn't a REAL computer". Which is pretty clearly an arrogant statement, I don't see any other way of interpreting it.
Re: APT Rust requirement raises questions
#10You know, it is easy to find this kind of nitpicking and seemingly eternal discussion over details exhausting and meaningless, but I do think it is actually a good sign and a consequence of "openness".
In politics, authoritarianism tend to show a pretty façade where everyone mostly agrees (the reality be damned), and discussion and dissenting voice are only allowed to a certain extent as a communication tool. This is usually what we see in corporate development.
Free software are much more like democracy, everyone can voice their opinion freely, and it tends to be messy, confrontational, nitpicky. It does often lead to slowing down changes, but it also avoids the common pitfall of authoritarian regime of going head first into a wall at the speed of light.