4 ms·

Thanks for sharing your perspective. My comment was largely based on this discussion: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/2173 https://github.com/mesonb

Thanks for sharing your perspective. My comment was largely based on this discussion: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/2173 https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/2173 If you'd like to share a short summary of your thoughts, I'll update the article with your commentary.

steveklabnik 8y ago
I would suggest not taking comments on random github threads as the position of a completely different project.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  I'm offering you an olive branch here. You can pile on the snark, or you can take my offer to issue a correction to my article. Edit: found the hostility. Fine, I won't issue a correction. I didn't find Steve's arguments entirely correct and I was willing to add a note to the page letting him share his perspective so the reader could make up their mind. Now I'm less open to that.
  - ecshafer 8y ago
    Steve has a point. You took what is essentially a random person on the internets comment as a true statement about a project.
  - dagenix 8y ago
    Your article includes a fully unsubstantiated claim based on a discussion from an unrelated project. Asking someone else to do something to fix your mistake is ludicrous and is in no way "offering an olive branch".
  - wyldfire 8y ago
    It does sound a little snarky but at the same time it's a real good point -- the article says "... met with hostility from the Rust & Cargo teams" and yet you cite "largely based on this discussion [of some other team using Rust to develop their project]." So if this is an error on your part, maybe you could issue a correction without a specific comment or rebuttal from anyone. EDIT: your edit makes you seem a little rash. I get that it might be overwhelming because the Rust Evangelism Strike Force (†) has showed up here but take some time to appreciate what folks are writing. Your article regarding Rust is naturally controversial and is filled with good points and bad ones. People will naturally pile on the bad ones. (†) Tongue in cheek, I'm probably a charter member
    - KirinDave 8y ago
      It's a pretty wild world where someone makes a claim about an entire project charter based entirely off of a single random comment on github, and then the folks who claim that's wrong and cite project documentation are "the Rust Evangelism Strike Force," even in jest.
      - wyldfire 8y ago
        I meant the HN comments section for this article as a whole. It went from very few comments to very many comments in a short amount of time.
        village-idiot 8y ago
        Write a flamebait article, and you should expect flames.
  - detaro 8y ago
    > Edit: found the hostility Share for those following along at home?
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      Someone disagreed with him, apparently.
  - taco_emoji 8y ago
    Why is it someone else's responsibility to correct your article? You based your accusation of hostility on hearsay, it's on you to correct that error.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    This is a very bad look, actively looking to punish others because they didn’t “accept your olive branch” after pointing out a mistake. I’d recommend you rethink your approach here.
    - r-w 8y ago
      I just think it’s absurd that @Sir_Cmpwn is using the rhetoric of peace and war in a discussion about a programming language.
bluejekyll 8y ago
I didn’t read the entire thread, but if I understood the gist of it, it seems like an anti-pattern is being asked for, and it would be an anti-pattern when mixing any languages. What it seems they want is the ability to mix Rust and C in the same build chain, not treat each as a separate build artifact and link at the end. I’ve never had a problem modeling things with Makefiles, having the Rust artifact target be built by Cargo and then linking with the standard toolchain for C in the Makefile. I’m clearly missing some context, as this works really well.
- steveklabnik 8y ago
  Yes, there's a ton of ways that you can do this. Most successful integrations thus far have done exactly that: you have a target for your Rust code, it calls out to Cargo and does its thing, and then links it in. I believe that you're right that the Meson folks want to use rustc like they use cc, and use Meson for all of the stuff that's not "compile this, please." This can work well as long as you're writing all of your own code. The issue is that most people like Cargo, and like using Cargo, and so virtually all open-source projects are built around Cargo. This is not unlike if you're a Meson fan, but you want to use an open source project that uses CMake for its build, and so it's only really set up to use CMake. (At least, in my understanding.)
  - bluejekyll 8y ago
    Well, then the comment they made about essentially rewriting Cargo is probably accurate. Doesn’t seem like it’s a valuable contribution to their end goal though. I do want to point out (for others, you know this) that Cargo has a lot of environment variables that can be used to improve its usage inside other build systems, e.g. using a shared target directory for reusing compilation of dependencies: https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/environment-variables.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/environment-variab...
    - steveklabnik 8y ago
      Right, that's why we introduced the build plan feature, so that you don't have to re-implement Cargo, you can use Cargo to spit out the stuff you need instead. :)
Manishearth 8y ago
I don't see anyone in that discussion who is on the Rust/Cargo teams. I see a bunch of disagreement from people involved in gstreamer/meson (and some other non-team folks), which makes sense, disagreeing with something on your own project isn't external hostility, it's how decisionmaking works.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Also, disagreement != hostility.

steveklabnik 8y ago

I would suggest not taking comments on random github threads as the position of a completely different project.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
I'm offering you an olive branch here. You can pile on the snark, or you can take my offer to issue a correction to my article. Edit: found the hostility. Fine, I won't issue a correction. I didn't find Steve's arguments entirely correct and I was willing to add a note to the page letting him share his perspective so the reader could make up their mind. Now I'm less open to that.
- ecshafer 8y ago
  Steve has a point. You took what is essentially a random person on the internets comment as a true statement about a project.
- dagenix 8y ago
  Your article includes a fully unsubstantiated claim based on a discussion from an unrelated project. Asking someone else to do something to fix your mistake is ludicrous and is in no way "offering an olive branch".
- wyldfire 8y ago
  It does sound a little snarky but at the same time it's a real good point -- the article says "... met with hostility from the Rust & Cargo teams" and yet you cite "largely based on this discussion [of some other team using Rust to develop their project]." So if this is an error on your part, maybe you could issue a correction without a specific comment or rebuttal from anyone. EDIT: your edit makes you seem a little rash. I get that it might be overwhelming because the Rust Evangelism Strike Force (†) has showed up here but take some time to appreciate what folks are writing. Your article regarding Rust is naturally controversial and is filled with good points and bad ones. People will naturally pile on the bad ones. (†) Tongue in cheek, I'm probably a charter member
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    It's a pretty wild world where someone makes a claim about an entire project charter based entirely off of a single random comment on github, and then the folks who claim that's wrong and cite project documentation are "the Rust Evangelism Strike Force," even in jest.
    - wyldfire 8y ago
      I meant the HN comments section for this article as a whole. It went from very few comments to very many comments in a short amount of time.
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        Write a flamebait article, and you should expect flames.
- detaro 8y ago
  > Edit: found the hostility Share for those following along at home?
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Someone disagreed with him, apparently.
- taco_emoji 8y ago
  Why is it someone else's responsibility to correct your article? You based your accusation of hostility on hearsay, it's on you to correct that error.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  This is a very bad look, actively looking to punish others because they didn’t “accept your olive branch” after pointing out a mistake. I’d recommend you rethink your approach here.
  - r-w 8y ago
    I just think it’s absurd that @Sir_Cmpwn is using the rhetoric of peace and war in a discussion about a programming language.

bluejekyll 8y ago

I didn’t read the entire thread, but if I understood the gist of it, it seems like an anti-pattern is being asked for, and it would be an anti-pattern when mixing any languages. What it seems they want is the ability to mix Rust and C in the same build chain, not treat each as a separate build artifact and link at the end. I’ve never had a problem modeling things with Makefiles, having the Rust artifact target be built by Cargo and then linking with the standard toolchain for C in the Makefile. I’m clearly missing some context, as this works really well.

steveklabnik 8y ago
Yes, there's a ton of ways that you can do this. Most successful integrations thus far have done exactly that: you have a target for your Rust code, it calls out to Cargo and does its thing, and then links it in. I believe that you're right that the Meson folks want to use rustc like they use cc, and use Meson for all of the stuff that's not "compile this, please." This can work well as long as you're writing all of your own code. The issue is that most people like Cargo, and like using Cargo, and so virtually all open-source projects are built around Cargo. This is not unlike if you're a Meson fan, but you want to use an open source project that uses CMake for its build, and so it's only really set up to use CMake. (At least, in my understanding.)
- bluejekyll 8y ago
  Well, then the comment they made about essentially rewriting Cargo is probably accurate. Doesn’t seem like it’s a valuable contribution to their end goal though. I do want to point out (for others, you know this) that Cargo has a lot of environment variables that can be used to improve its usage inside other build systems, e.g. using a shared target directory for reusing compilation of dependencies: https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/environment-variables.html https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/environment-variab...
  - steveklabnik 8y ago
    Right, that's why we introduced the build plan feature, so that you don't have to re-implement Cargo, you can use Cargo to spit out the stuff you need instead. :)

Manishearth 8y ago

I don't see anyone in that discussion who is on the Rust/Cargo teams. I see a bunch of disagreement from people involved in gstreamer/meson (and some other non-team folks), which makes sense, disagreeing with something on your own project isn't external hostility, it's how decisionmaking works.

village-idiot 8y ago
Also, disagreement != hostility.