3 ms·
> The thing is he is attacking Rust not based on the safety the language provides, but more on a feeling that the package, crates, network doesn't fit his belie
by sidlls 10y ago
> The thing is he is attacking Rust not based on the safety the language provides, but more on a feeling that the package, crates, network doesn't fit his belief of how things should be curated. He states that he thinks this is why BDFL is good model, but gives no strong evidence supporting that view.
One might easily argue that folks who criticize C and C++ for its ecosystem are also "attacking" it, by your reasoning. It detracts from the rest of your comment in my opinion (which isn't humble at all).
And "the Rust community" is not a monolithic entity. For example, I find "the Rust community" in aggregate here on HN, other than a relatively small few, to be rather caustic, aggressively defensive against criticisms of Rust, and a bit too handy with downvotes for disagreement of legitimate arguments against some of Rust's features, syntax, grammar, etc.
- bluejekyll 10y ago'Attack' is a bit of hyperbole, so it's fair criticism, but I do feel that the article he wrote had much less to do with issues with the language, but a very monocular and subjective view of how ecosystems should be maintained. He does have some good ideas in there about how to possibly to make crates.io help you more easily identify the best crate for your usecase, but I think the solution to that is a fairly detailed algorithm weighing the some list of values like I put above. Otherwise you end up never allowing new options to blossom. Trying to read how what I put before wasn't humble, and perhaps your right on that point as well. The perseption of humbleness is definitely subjective, and the added color I threw in there probably in fact did remove any humility from the overall statement, which of course are my own personal views and I highly encourage people to question and criticize them.
- sidlls 10y agoI meant my opinion wasn't humble, not yours.