641–650 of 1001 posts
I've written a lot of Rust code that's in production in web, messaging and telephony contexts. I considered using Actix early on, but as soon as I saw the large amount of unsafe code, I stopped considering it at all. I did not go on the Internet and try to convince other people not to use it. I did not complain at the maintainer that he should manage his project differently. I just didn't see why a library doing what…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why even have the read-only mirror?
CI integrations, other tooling, etc can still be useful
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta-comment: Thank you. Online discussion would be much more productive if everyone clearly laid out the principles on which their viewpoint was based. Fundamentally, there are only a few ways honest people can disagree: Different principles, different information, different interpretation, or just plain misunderstanding. (Meta-meta: This is the principle that I believe and based this comment on.) Much of what makes…
In addition to the (great) framework you listed, there is another big factor - incentives. You may be aligned in principles, have the same info etc. but if your incentives are misaligned it can be hard to agree.
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 was advertised as a production-ready web-framework, and it was very popular. When do people get to complain? "Oh, my credit card information was stolen due to memory issues in this web-service, it's fine though, we didn't pay the guy, so we can't blame him.". Web-frameworks are cornerstones for security, and if you write one, advertise one, you need to care about security. Features, code-style, ad-hoc PRs, bug-fix…
This is less building the playground and more providing architectural plans to build the playground with common building materials. If some part is unsound, people might also be upset, but they weren't forced to build using your plans and could have reviewed the plans themselves. Where the blame lies is much more ambiguous than how you present it, IMO.
This is the reason why Rust will never go mainstream. People say "You can get the same performance and features as C++ with unsafe!", but as happens in every language such hacks gets ostracized by the community and therefore basically unusable. So instead we just write our code in C++ which is unsafe by default so nobody complains.
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…
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 commu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, from my perspective it seems common practice in most open source projects which are hosted on GH that maintainers at least consider PRs and typically only reject if the PR is flawed, incomplete or somehow adds feature creep. Of course any maintainer is free to handle it differently, but if going against usual expectations, it would be benefitial for all involved to note reluctance to PRs prominently to the Read…
I thought basic etiquette was issue to discuss before PR? Starting with a PR seems to me like saying "you have nothing to tell me about how your code works, I know exactly how your code should be changed and if my changes conflict with what you're working on you should throw your code out because mine is better". Is that wrong?
Perhaps it needs to be said more clearly on project pages and codes of conduct and participation.
(Of course, it is not reasonable to demand that an already-overworked maintainer-for-free find extra hours to have the pre-PR discussion either. It needs to be exploratory and respect the maintainers' timescales. Luckily, if you don't get the response you wanted, you can fork and hire someone else or do it yourself, and keep your fixes in the queue for others to review eventually, if they want, at whatever timescale suits them.)
Unfortunately, there seem to be quite a lot of people who would, rather than discussing ideas respectfully, instead prefer to bully and shame the maintainer.
Such as, for example, calling out perceived issues in the code publically (sometimes incorrectly), and making out how unskilled the maintainer must be, in order to put pressure on the maintainer to sacrifice their personal life and do what the bully wants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reporting bugs is annoying? I want people to point out bugs in my code, so both my code and me as a developer can improve.
This isn't a serious response. As amply demonstrated in TFA and elsewhere, the harassment was far more than "reporting bugs". And, anyway, yes, reporting bugs can be extremely annoying. Different devs respond to this annoyance differently. npm devs, for example, have decided not to pay too much attention to bugs reported by the public. [0] [0] https://npm.community/c/bugs
I would never touch the product of someone who found bug reports annoying.
""" But the point is, while Reddit is not official, and so not linked to by any official resources, it’s still a very large group of people, and so to suggest it’s “not the Rust community” in some way is both true and very not true. """ Perhaps one could call it "the unsafe Rust community." ;)