Comment by alxlaz
2 years ago
There are quite a few abrasive replies upthread from some Rustaceans. They don't mention Rust by name, just like not every one of Drepper's mails contained the world "glibc", but they're in the same vein.
This is particularly important at a point in a language's lifetime when community support is not just the best, but usually the only kind of support you can get. I like Rust and I'm very productive with it, but if anyone thinks I'm going to ask junior devs on my team to put up with the kind of stuff I see upstream, they're wrong. Just because we developed a thick skin for it on FOSS mailing lists back in the nineties doesn't mean everyone needs to.
If you see poor behavior in the project, call it out. I would personally be interested in being made aware of it to help eliminate it, but the moderation team[1] exists specifically to deal with this.
1: https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/moderation
Life's too short.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "upthread". Do you mean in this HN thread? Or in a mailing list associated with the commit OP points to? If so, do you have a link to said mailing list?
Yeah, I meant up in this HN thread.
Well then, again, I really want to protest that "the Rust community is ignoring all the [social] mistakes of the past" is a pretty harsh and unfair judgment of the Rust community.
There's only a few mentions of Rust in this thread, they're all pretty tentative and polite. The mistakes of the past include stuff like people hurling insults at each other and calling people idiot for not using a given technology.
What I'm seeing in this thread is, at most, strong-ish opinions that C is systematically bad and maybe the solution is switching to Rust. That's not being abrasive, that's being opinionated.
(And yeah, I know that I'm sealion-ing this a bit; but I do think when people say stuff like "community X is abrasive and didn't learn from the past", a non-null burden of evidence should be expected)
1 reply →