Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund

rustfoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 110 posts

Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund

#41

Post by Ygg2 »

nixpulvis wrote: post #17
weird_trousers wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with some points, but I share the feeling in terms of "failed promises". The fact that most well-known Rust crates are becoming huge bloat are becoming a problem to me, which is something that has been critized years again by the community itself. As an example, I still do not understand why simple HTTP crates require more than 50 to 70 dependencies to execute a simple GET call...

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.

This has happened already. See https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/cell/struct.LazyCell.html

It's just it's not frequent.

There is very few things that need to be in the standard library. I only ever miss chrono or equivalent not being in std.

Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund

#43

Post by vacuity »

echelon wrote: post #19
munificent wrote: post #12

Earlier 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 community" is an oxymoron No it's not. I'm an LGBT person with a trans partner and I find many codes of conduct to be chastising and purposefully finger pointing to conservative people. A lot of them are basically, "your religious teachings or cultural upbringing aren't welcome here" I don't agree with religious texts, but that's what you're wagging in their face with some of the CoCs. Leave it at "d…

I agree with you, although of course "don't be an asshole" is only simple to enforce in practice. In the current climate, I expect that people considered "conservative" will still be highly hostile to good faith (let alone not) enforcements.

No matter the person, it's really disappointing that we're still entrenched in the mentalities of tribalism, anti-intellectualism, "if you're not with us, you're against us", "an eye for an eye", "someone hurt me, so I'm going to hurt someone", and so on. And by "person", that includes me.

The Earth politics patch really can't come soon enough. How much do we pay the devs, again?

Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund

#44

Post by stusmall »

boje wrote: post #31

Why doesn't Zig attract the same sort of lukewarm response that Rust does from parts of communities?

It isn't all of the objection, but there is a non-neglible amount of anti-woke people who find some weak technical reason to hate rust. It's silly but you'll be amazed in how often you see it line up when checking a random sampling of people who show up in rust threads just to make off topic complaints about rust.

EDIT: I hadn't fully gone through the comment section on this one yet and yikes it's worse about it than normal.

Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund

#45

Post by echelon »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #35
pessimizer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Imagine the flip side. We could easily wind up in that world too.

The best defense against polarization is a strong and cohesive middle ground.

If you pull to far in the other way, all the bonds break. And it's a race for each interest group to seize power, rather than having some intermediating force that serves as a buffer.

Again: look at the political climate. It's a reaction. The pendulum is swinging harder and harder because we've given up on the middle ground.

Most of the people you hate (and you do seem to dislike them at least a little bit) have honestly never had an LGBT friend. Imagine if they did how that might change them.

Instead they hear voices from the LGBT community that want to outlaw them and their way of life. That's pretty hostile. And definitely is going to be met with the same attitude you're giving them.

I'm LGBT and I have many conservative friends. They're more apt to come around to it than you believe. You're shutting down any conversation before it can even happen.

Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund

#46

Post by vacuity »

steveklabnik wrote: post #37
vacuity wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not aware of the attempts, but at least the route of adding more to the stdlib seems even worse, although it may be popular.

Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund

#47

Post by Oper_52 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #35
pessimizer wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> people who think my friends shouldn't exist

What does this mean? Are you talking about people who openly support actual murder? Almost everyone is opposed to that, of course.

Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund

#48

Post by nixpulvis »

Ygg2 wrote: post #41
nixpulvis wrote: post #17

Earlier 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.

This has happened already. See https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/cell/struct.LazyCell.html It's just it's not frequent. There is very few things that need to be in the standard library. I only ever miss chrono or equivalent not being in std.

Time functions are a prefect example of somewhere there should be expanded support for in the STD. I'm also of the opinion that there should be a generic and reasonable async runtime in STD, since having `async` in the language, but to direct way to use it without a crate or writing your own executor is awkward.

Then there are things like serialization and logging, which I like the idea of having promoted crates which are essentially just better advertised for newcomers. (Maybe included in the distribution already in some way).

Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund

#49

Post by jdright »

ratmice wrote: post #10
steveklabnik wrote: post #4

Earlier 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.

> * With a great non-political community (actually, this is the biggest lie of all). I recall the opposite, that the rust language (before the foundation) position was that being apolitical was a political stance. This is not the exact message I remember https://x.com/rustlang/status/1267519582505512960 and also can't realistically cover the entire community at large, as if that even has a single political stance.

The group that insists on keeping a community or software project 'non-political' often fails to recognize that this stance is itself a political position. They claim to want a neutral space, but what they really mean is that the existing political view does not align with their own. By dismissing other perspectives as 'political' while treating their own as neutral, they end up being both hypocritical and unwilling (or unable) to acknowledge that their opinions are political too.

Re: The Rust Foundation Maintainers Fund

#50

Post by clipsy »

echelon wrote: post #19
munificent wrote: post #12

Earlier 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 community" is an oxymoron No it's not. I'm an LGBT person with a trans partner and I find many codes of conduct to be chastising and purposefully finger pointing to conservative people. A lot of them are basically, "your religious teachings or cultural upbringing aren't welcome here" I don't agree with religious texts, but that's what you're wagging in their face with some of the CoCs. Leave it at "d…

> A lot of them are basically, "your religious teachings or cultural upbringing aren't welcome here"

Could you point out a code of conduct -- preferably from a large, well known project -- that reads this way in your opinion?

Post reply on HN