A Sad Day for Rust • Hacker News Board

Re: A Sad Day for Rust

#551

Post by Touche » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:07 PM UTC

kllrnohj wrote: post #503

BowBun wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having a project maintainer then call those patches boring or otherwise disregard them? That's childish So what? Along the same lines, it's not a maintainer's responsibility to follow best-practices, respond to feedback/PRs, or respond in any coherent way to anything asked of them. The fact that you call them childish for not acting they way you want them to makes me think you are the childish one. With those PRs w…

> it's not a maintainer's responsibility to follow best-practices, respond to feedback/PRs, or respond in any coherent way to anything asked of them. It is when they setup an open source project that has that appearance and is framed as being such a project. It is entirely the maintainer's responsibility to establish the type of open source project it is. If it was just a toy hobby project and that's all it was meant…

Read the license, it frames the project exactly.

Re: A Sad Day for Rust

#552

Post by throwaway894345 » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:08 PM UTC

pgeorgi wrote: post #373

weberc2 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, I don't have a dog in this fight. On the one hand, there is the maintainer who is within his rights to accept or reject patches as he wishes (although it's not great that he's allegedly falsely advertising his project as secure) and you have critics who are within their right to criticize (although it's not great that much criticism is vitriolic, etc). As TFA says, it's a sad affair all around. > The problem wa…

> Criticism isn't "force" or "attempted force". If you think criticism is rude, that's fine. Hypocritical, but fine. No, the attempt to make somebody do what you want by brigading is what's attempting to exert force and what's rude. Hiding that behind "I'm just criticizing" (you didn't, but it's a popular refrain in such "debates") is more than only rude, it's also cowardice. > You can't rationally say the maintainer…

> No, the attempt to make somebody do what you want by brigading is what's attempting to exert force and what's rude.

Unless the critics are engaging in threats, intimidation, and/or violence, we're talking about criticism and not force.

> Criticism isn't "force" or "attempted force". If you think criticism is rude, that's fine. Hypocritical, but fine.

No, the attempt to make somebody do what you want by brigading is what's attempting to exert force and what's rude.

> The author of the package didn't force their code onto the users.

No one is arguing this. Weird straw man.

> The authors of the criticism forced their criticism on him by throwing it his way in the form of bug reports etc. even when it was clear that there's no interest in it.

Wow. I really didn't anticipate the "bug reports == force" equivalence.

Re: A Sad Day for Rust

#553

Post by nathell » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:10 PM UTC

ddevault wrote: post #38

A lot of this thread has it wrong, and this wrongness contributes to the problem which led to this. I have two simple mantras which establish my philosophy here: 1. YOU are responsible for your dependencies. 2. Open source participants are volunteers and owe you nothing. It was never Nikolay's job to vet actix-web for you, nor did it become his job when the library became popular, nor does invoking "security" change…

> User entitlement is totally unjustified and will burn out maintainers faster than almost anything else.

That's correct. Here's Rich Hickey's take on it: https://gist.github.com/richhickey/1563cddea1002958f96e7ba95...

Re: A Sad Day for Rust

#554

Post by vvillena » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:11 PM UTC

gwd wrote: post #519

vvillena wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have a right to become angry. They absolutely don't have any right to override the will of a project maintainer. By the way, isn't this a great opportunity? The code is open. Fork it. Seize the day. Become a better maintainer, and build a community around your fork. Ensure the community needs and wants are aligned with yours. Steer that ship. Gain prestige. And money, maybe. If someone is a bad maintainer, the…

> People have a right to become angry. No. You have a right to be annoyed , and then fork the project if you want. You do not have a right to become angry unless you're paying for it.

I'll clarify. I meant that people are entitled to their own emotions, and being angry is ok. What's not ok is to hurl the anger towards somebody. In this case, there are lots of other good options, all of them more productive and compassionate than simply grabbing the pitchforks.

Re: A Sad Day for Rust

#555

Post by carapace » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

fnord77 wrote: post #445

ddevault wrote: post #38

A lot of this thread has it wrong, and this wrongness contributes to the problem which led to this. I have two simple mantras which establish my philosophy here: 1. YOU are responsible for your dependencies. 2. Open source participants are volunteers and owe you nothing. It was never Nikolay's job to vet actix-web for you, nor did it become his job when the library became popular, nor does invoking "security" change…

> It was never Nikolay's job to vet actix-web for you Imagine if the linux maintainers took this attitude. This attitude severely undermines the credibility of opensource. If users of opensource libraries can't have confidence that those libraries are written correctly, we might as well all go back to commercial software.

What would be the basis for confidence that those commercial libraries are written correctly since you can't audit the source code?

Re: A Sad Day for Rust

#556

Post by layoutIfNeeded » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #518

I have been complaining about Rust's "unsafe" for years. There's too much "unsafe" code because there are things that you either can't express, or are very hard to express, in safe Rust. I've pointed out partially initialized arrays and backlinks as key trouble spots. Both are potentially fixable. I've gotten back complicated excuses for not dealing with these design problems. There was a serious denial problem in th…

>You're sending a reference to an array of unknown size.

The next argument is literally the length of the array.

Re: A Sad Day for Rust

#557

Post by nabla9 » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:12 PM UTC

ddevault wrote: post #38

A lot of this thread has it wrong, and this wrongness contributes to the problem which led to this. I have two simple mantras which establish my philosophy here: 1. YOU are responsible for your dependencies. 2. Open source participants are volunteers and owe you nothing. It was never Nikolay's job to vet actix-web for you, nor did it become his job when the library became popular, nor does invoking "security" change…

As a someone who don't use Rust..

I started to suspect that this was satire with all the talk of inclusive and the use or 'unsafe'. I kept reading and reading in anticipation of gradual escalation that reveals it's satire. In the end there was none. I had to come here to read comments and to see if this was real or just very subtle satire. Apparently this is real.

I just can't wrap my head around the "inclusive community building". What happened to "Those who write the code decide everything" and "You are free to fork if you don't like where this is heading". Any free community is as much about exclusion as inclusion.

Re: A Sad Day for Rust

#558

Post by 0xdead » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

_bxg1 wrote: post #390

Rust is unique in that it attracts: - Language theory enthusiasts, a famously pedantic group - Systems programmers, a famously exclusionary group - Unwashed masses of web developers who have never done either of the above before Frankly I'm amazed it's been as civil as it has been

I wish I could upvote this many times.

Re: A Sad Day for Rust

#559

Post by mratsim » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:13 PM UTC

streb-lo wrote: post #65

ddevault wrote: post #38

A lot of this thread has it wrong, and this wrongness contributes to the problem which led to this. I have two simple mantras which establish my philosophy here: 1. YOU are responsible for your dependencies. 2. Open source participants are volunteers and owe you nothing. It was never Nikolay's job to vet actix-web for you, nor did it become his job when the library became popular, nor does invoking "security" change…

Exactly this. If it doesn't meet your standards, don't use it. Alternatively, go fork yourself.

But then you get drama about Not-Invented-Here, why are you creating yet-another-X-framework instead of improving the existing ones.

Or you get drama like ffmpeg vs libav/avconv.

Re: A Sad Day for Rust

#560

Post by honkycat » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

I love Neil Gaiman's "Entitlement Issues".

To sum it up: "George R.R. Martin is not your bitch."

I would carry this even further: "Open source maintainers are not your bitch."

I see a lot of whining and entitlement from engineers on open source repo issues pages. Open a pull request, fork it and host it yourself, and just relax in general.

Not to say maintainers can't be jerks. But again: That is their choice. They are not your bitch.