3 ms·

Rustaceans should evangelise their language with actually relevant points though, not bring up unrelated bloat into their arguments. For example, there is no r

Rustaceans should evangelise their language with actually relevant points though, not bring up unrelated bloat into their arguments. For example, there is no reason to talk about cmake in a conversation like this. Its childish and sabotages a legitimately good movement: using a safer language. Edit: I have made quite a silly gaffe. This is a lead dev commenting, not a thread started by a visiting user. That changes things quite a bit. My apologies to you and the dev in question.

detaro 4y ago
As a C++ developer, not having to deal with cmake et al again is not the worst argument for using another language. Not a major one (cmake is servicable after all, just annoying), but one. Don't see how arguing with better tools is "childish" and "sabotaging".
- plaguepilled 4y ago
  To me, the issue is the construction of the argument, and the context. Cmake has flaws but unless the fish devs have explicitly complained about them, I would say it doesn't make sense to bring it up (note: maybe they did, which would invalidate what I've said and make me look a bit silly). However, we know security will affect them (since they're a shell interface) so that does make sense to mention. But, between cargo and cmake, I agree I will always pick cargo.
  - steveklabnik 4y ago
    > Cmake has flaws but unless the fish devs have explicitly complained about them The comment you're complaining about was made by the fish devs. It is them saying that.
    - plaguepilled 4y ago
      Well! I GROSSLY misread the situation then. My earnest apologies.
      - steveklabnik 4y ago
        It happens to the best of us :)
djur 4y ago
This isn't a Rustacean evangelizing their language, though, it's a leading developer in a project making a case to the rest of the dev team. OP presumably has some idea of how the rest of the team feels about C++ and CMake and how they'll react to this negative characterization.
- plaguepilled 4y ago
  Yep you're right, and my apologies, I misread quite hilariously. It seems I was unwittingly enrolled to the national clown college.

detaro 4y ago

As a C++ developer, not having to deal with cmake et al again is not the worst argument for using another language. Not a major one (cmake is servicable after all, just annoying), but one. Don't see how arguing with better tools is "childish" and "sabotaging".

plaguepilled 4y ago
To me, the issue is the construction of the argument, and the context. Cmake has flaws but unless the fish devs have explicitly complained about them, I would say it doesn't make sense to bring it up (note: maybe they did, which would invalidate what I've said and make me look a bit silly). However, we know security will affect them (since they're a shell interface) so that does make sense to mention. But, between cargo and cmake, I agree I will always pick cargo.
- steveklabnik 4y ago
  > Cmake has flaws but unless the fish devs have explicitly complained about them The comment you're complaining about was made by the fish devs. It is them saying that.
  - plaguepilled 4y ago
    Well! I GROSSLY misread the situation then. My earnest apologies.
    - steveklabnik 4y ago
      It happens to the best of us :)

djur 4y ago

This isn't a Rustacean evangelizing their language, though, it's a leading developer in a project making a case to the rest of the dev team. OP presumably has some idea of how the rest of the team feels about C++ and CMake and how they'll react to this negative characterization.

plaguepilled 4y ago
Yep you're right, and my apologies, I misread quite hilariously. It seems I was unwittingly enrolled to the national clown college.