Why doesn't Zig attract the same sort of lukewarm response that Rust does from parts of communities?
The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund
31–40 of 110 posts
Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund
#32Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can (and often must) work with people you don't agree with. Life's for too short to force people to do this, and ideally we should make it as feasible as possible for as many people as possible to never have to do this.
This is a crazy notion. If I have to like everybody to work with them, we can't have a civilization because I don't like most people. I like some people. Everybody else I work with if they're willing to work with me. Saying that we all have to agree with each other is basically giving up on the political project entirely, and going back to strongman rulers who organize by demanding conformity. Very relevant in these…
There is a wide gulf between "I don't like this person" and "this person's whole existence should be a crime".
Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund
#34Why doesn't Zig attract the same sort of lukewarm response that Rust does from parts of communities?
Rust came first, so people who didn't like Rust flocked to Zig as an alternative, and were keen to promote it as an alternative to Rust by criticising Rust, as wider usage would provide them more of an ecosystem to use in their own Zig programs.
People who were happy with Rust didn't have same need to criticise Zig in online spaces as Rust is the established player in the C alternatives space. (Though Rust is on the other side when compared to C once you expand the space to "all low level programming languages").
Also for people who don't care about the space at all, Rust has had years of exposure to promote fatigue, while Zig hasn't (yet).
Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can (and often must) work with people you don't agree with. Life's for too short to force people to do this, and ideally we should make it as feasible as possible for as many people as possible to never have to do this.
This is a crazy notion. If I have to like everybody to work with them, we can't have a civilization because I don't like most people. I like some people. Everybody else I work with if they're willing to work with me. Saying that we all have to agree with each other is basically giving up on the political project entirely, and going back to strongman rulers who organize by demanding conformity. Very relevant in these…
Nope. I won't work with people who think my friends shouldn't exist. And I won't work with people who think doing that is somehow childish.
Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where were these things promised to you? I was there then too, and maybe one or two of these things were relevant if you squint, but also many of them were actively not promised.
I agree that those were not actually "promises" but "directions", and I apologise for that. Those directions were mainly cited in different conferences by some Rust-head-members at that time (Alex Crichton, Niko Matsakis, Ashley Williams, or even you), and during conversations I had with severals during Rust Fest or RustCon. For example, I remember talking that with you at the Rust Fest 2017, in Zurich actually, espe…
Niko and Alex were the only ones in leadership in 2013, I didn't until 2014, and Ashley later. Rust Fest and Rust Con didn't come along until much later.
> It is ok for the community to move on different directions than the first one
I agree, I just disagree with your characterization of "the first one." There were differences between the original Rust and what shipped, but almost none of it has to do with what you've said. In 2012-2013, Rust very explicitly changed a lot across time, and now it certainly does not. Async/await drove a lot of that adoption. Rust was always "political", even before 2012.
Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's clear to me that Rust needs to start admitting more into the STD to help with this and increase the consistency across the ecosystem.
No, I think the idea of blessing a set of crates (with versions!) is better. The stdlib has a high burden of maintenance, and ideally should only be added to if changes are always backwards compatible. A blessed set is more flexible but still provides a high degree of reliability, unlike the present situation.
This has been tried a few times, and in practice, people prefer the current status quo.
Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but it is definitely not a C replacement, but a replacement of C++.
I think Rust primarily being a C++ replacement has been acknowledged ever since it was considered for use in Firefox.
This whole idea of an "x replacement" doesn't make any sense in the first place. Language boundaries are not that strict. People say "Zig is a C replacement, Rust is a C++ replacement" but even Andrew Kelley himself says that Zig is a replacement for the C++ he was writing at the time. I work with a lot of C folks who never liked C++ who liked Rust.
Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> non-political community "Non-political community" is an oxymoron, like "non-aquatic lake". Politics is the verb that communities do.
Non-political almost always means "accept the social status quo I am used to". I think there is a reasonable argument that the default for a community with technical goals should be to accept social status quo conventions unless they conflict with the communities technical goals. But if the social default is "girls don't code and queers should hide" there is a reasonable counterargument that these conflict with the g…
> But if the social default is "girls don't code and queers should hide"
Queers should hide definitely isn't any social default unless the code is exclusively developed in Gaza. "Do what you like but please stick to technical considerations" isn't "you need to hide".
Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund
#40[flagged]
I don't give a damn about politics so I don't care what politics the language I use likes or not. If someone believes people should not exists because of their political or religious stance, sexuality or origin. We don't have a political problem we have one of morality and I don't compromise in that regard.
Edit: come on don't downvote explain your reasoning.