4 ms·

I remember when people were claiming Common Lisp community is toxic, but I find that it is the languages which tend to focus on "building community" with Commun

by Grue3 7y ago

I remember when people were claiming Common Lisp community is toxic, but I find that it is the languages which tend to focus on "building community" with Community Managers and Codes of Conduct that end up becoming truly toxic cesspools in the end. See also node.js. The focus on community attracts people who aren't interested in programming, but rather those who want a playground for gaining clout and trolling. You never hear about C++ drama, why is that?

burlesona 7y ago
That’s an interesting point of view. I don’t know if it’s true, but if it were true I wonder what the reason might be. Perhaps the communities that don’t “do community building” don’t need to because they already have a healthy community? Perhaps the projects that do community building are starting from an unhealthy place and fighting an uphill battle? Or perhaps some percentage of the “community builders” are the ones who like to rage/shame anyone who, even unintentionally, causes any offense? Which naturally escalates the conflict. Which way does causation run?
boris 7y ago
Oh, there is plenty of drama on /r/cpp/.
zelly 7y ago
Primates tend to attack each other out of envy when they become too similar and all behave the same exact way. They look to find someone to crucify to get rid of the angst built up from being too similar to the next person. The Common Lisp community was pretty much the opposite of the Node/Rust crowd. Everyone was different. Lots of people were using different implementations of CL. Most people even had their own custom editors. And of course everyone had their own DSL of macros they carried around with them, so basically everyone had their own language. The supposed toxicity of the CL community was from the constant arguments because they all had strong opinions different from each other. If this were the CL community, there would be 20 different versions of actix-web or something like it. There would be no need to create drama and make whiny demands of other people, because everyone in CL actually knows how to program.
watwut 7y ago
There was incredible amount of Linux drama all the time and they did not focused on community. The tor project was like, the most dramatic project on Internet for a while till they started to focus on community a bit more. So I don't think premise holds.
lostmyoldone 7y ago
If the community is openly acerbic, toxic, autocratic, etc it sometimes becomes less of an issue because you know exactly what to expect, and expectation management is important for people. If I in the past would have felt I needed to send a patch to the lkml, I wouldn't have felt intimidated because if my code would've gotten shredded to pieces, I was in very good company. The lkml also didn't really brigade, or bully, even if people sometimes was quite emotional. However, for some people I'm sure it would be hell. There are however several projects with extensive guidelines that I would feel intimidated to interact with, as the power struggles and infighting is likely to be well and alive although I can't see it, there's also a brigade of attackers available to anyone who manage to convince them I was in the wrong. Community guidelines unless expertly written and religiously enforced are unproportionally useful for those with either a manipulative streak, or those with good social and language skills, as they often grant them more power. In this respect mirroring society. However, apart from keeping the most blatant misconduct out of the open, it also becomes a weapon to be used against anyone less adept at navigating the social hierarchy. Thus, the extent to wherever a particular community ends up, in reality becomes almost inscrutable to the casual observer. For me it's the same in real life, in contexts where the societal norms are somewhat displaced I have few issues. The selfish, aggressive, and other bad actors stand out like they would wear neon colors. In society in general, in the workplace, I have all kinds of issues because amid all the unspoken rules there will always be one that can be sufficiently well misapplied to defuse valid criticism. We don't get pathological liars voted into various offices because people are good at arguing rationally, but they also tend get to stay there because they are protected by the rules, unless the rules are expertly and independently applied.

by Grue3 7y ago

burlesona 7y ago

That’s an interesting point of view. I don’t know if it’s true, but if it were true I wonder what the reason might be. Perhaps the communities that don’t “do community building” don’t need to because they already have a healthy community? Perhaps the projects that do community building are starting from an unhealthy place and fighting an uphill battle? Or perhaps some percentage of the “community builders” are the ones who like to rage/shame anyone who, even unintentionally, causes any offense? Which naturally escalates the conflict. Which way does causation run?

boris 7y ago

Oh, there is plenty of drama on /r/cpp/.

zelly 7y ago

Primates tend to attack each other out of envy when they become too similar and all behave the same exact way. They look to find someone to crucify to get rid of the angst built up from being too similar to the next person. The Common Lisp community was pretty much the opposite of the Node/Rust crowd. Everyone was different. Lots of people were using different implementations of CL. Most people even had their own custom editors. And of course everyone had their own DSL of macros they carried around with them, so basically everyone had their own language. The supposed toxicity of the CL community was from the constant arguments because they all had strong opinions different from each other. If this were the CL community, there would be 20 different versions of actix-web or something like it. There would be no need to create drama and make whiny demands of other people, because everyone in CL actually knows how to program.

watwut 7y ago

There was incredible amount of Linux drama all the time and they did not focused on community. The tor project was like, the most dramatic project on Internet for a while till they started to focus on community a bit more. So I don't think premise holds.

lostmyoldone 7y ago

If the community is openly acerbic, toxic, autocratic, etc it sometimes becomes less of an issue because you know exactly what to expect, and expectation management is important for people. If I in the past would have felt I needed to send a patch to the lkml, I wouldn't have felt intimidated because if my code would've gotten shredded to pieces, I was in very good company. The lkml also didn't really brigade, or bully, even if people sometimes was quite emotional. However, for some people I'm sure it would be hell. There are however several projects with extensive guidelines that I would feel intimidated to interact with, as the power struggles and infighting is likely to be well and alive although I can't see it, there's also a brigade of attackers available to anyone who manage to convince them I was in the wrong. Community guidelines unless expertly written and religiously enforced are unproportionally useful for those with either a manipulative streak, or those with good social and language skills, as they often grant them more power. In this respect mirroring society. However, apart from keeping the most blatant misconduct out of the open, it also becomes a weapon to be used against anyone less adept at navigating the social hierarchy. Thus, the extent to wherever a particular community ends up, in reality becomes almost inscrutable to the casual observer. For me it's the same in real life, in contexts where the societal norms are somewhat displaced I have few issues. The selfish, aggressive, and other bad actors stand out like they would wear neon colors. In society in general, in the workplace, I have all kinds of issues because amid all the unspoken rules there will always be one that can be sufficiently well misapplied to defuse valid criticism. We don't get pathological liars voted into various offices because people are good at arguing rationally, but they also tend get to stay there because they are protected by the rules, unless the rules are expertly and independently applied.