4 ms·

Both the C community and the C++ community is strong enough to survive someone occasionally posting about how the committee is sometimes annoying to work with.

by mort96 3y ago

Both the C community and the C++ community is strong enough to survive someone occasionally posting about how the committee is sometimes annoying to work with. In return, we get some pretty awesome new features and important fixes to the languages and their standard libraries. Seems like a win to me.

wubalubadubdub 3y ago
[flagged]
- mort96 3y ago
  In this thread, I am "running defence" for his right to choose a programming language that's not Rust. I don't think that's going too far. I don't understand why someone would be careful giving him grants just because the Rust leadership is utterly incompetent and creates drama.
  - wubalubadubdub 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - mort96 3y ago
      I don't know the details of the agreement (if any) between the Rust Foundation and Meneide, but if the Rust Foundation thinks that Meneide broke an agreement then I'll let them allege that. I don't know how much use there is to speculating about it. In any case, the Rust Project has made it clear that they're not interested in the compile time reflection the way Shepherd's Oasis was doing it, so I'm not sure what use there would be in completing that work. You seem to be jumping around in this conversation, unwilling to stick to one point. Earlier, it seemed like your main complaint was his conduct. When I challenged you on that, you didn't back that up, you jumped over to this grant money speculation. If your issue with him is that you suspect foul play regarding grant money, why didn't you lead with that? If your issue with him is his conduct, why didn't you attempt to make any arguments for why his conduct is problematic when challenged on it?
      - wubalubadubdub 3y ago
        [flagged]
        mort96 3y ago
        Disagreeing with something isn't the same as glossing over it. You didn't say anything of substance, just an empty accusation of "fits of anger, uncharitable accusations to others, vindictiveness"; so there was nothing to address. > JeanHeyd has a tendency to take any criticism to his work, and his technical opinions has meritless. He has a history of implying that there's bigotry, and that objection is the same as obstruction. The very source of this issue is that there were apparently people in the leadership who took serious issues with the direction of the compile time proposal, but were seemingly unwilling to have the discussion about technical merits. If he has a history of creating drama from technical criticism of his work, this RustConf fiasco is certainly not an instance of that. You, however, have a history (in this discussion at least) of claiming something without backing it up. It would be very helpful if you actually linked to examples of him doing the things you're criticising him for, both on this point and the others.
        wubalubadubdub 3y ago
        [flagged]
        mort96 3y ago
        Listen, I'm getting tired of this discussion. If you link to anything at all which confirms your claim that his problem in the RustConf/compile-time computation debacle is that someone criticized his work on a technical level, I'll just accept that you're correct and move on. If not... well. I'm done.
        wubalubadubdub 3y ago
        I have through this discussion asserted that JeanHeid started this drama over a perceived slight for having his talk downgraded. I have separately mentioned that JeanHeyd is a person who has issue taking criticism, but I have not claimed in this thread that this rust debacle was precipitated by this trait of his. I did provide enough reasoning above for all this, but you again ignored, and didn't address any of it. You have claimed that people were sabotaging his work. The onus of the evidence is on you. All public statements we've seen are that there might have been concerns, but before these concerns were discussed, JeanHeyd went full nuclear mode over his talk getting downgraded.
- slikrick 3y ago
  it's very weird of you to basically only call out the above user's actions of... being in the thread, and not the actual merits of what they're saying. many of us will laugh at you as well, because you don't add anything to the conversation but pretend like you do
  - wubalubadubdub 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - mort96 3y ago
      You can't just accuse someone of going scorched earth on others for technical criticism, without backing that up. Talk about a specific instance where he has done that, ideally with links. Just throwing accusations at people the way you're doing is actually a really shitty thing to do. Even if he was 100% guilty of all the things you claim, your conduct is not acceptable.
      - wubalubadubdub 3y ago
        > going scorched earth on others for technical criticism I said JeanHeyd doesn't appreciate technical criticism, and I said he goes full scorched earth on others. However, I mentioned both in separate sentences. Please don't twist my words. You are the one linking them both, suggesting that one happened due to the other, when in fact I was merely describing aspects of his nasty personality in general, with no suggestion that this was the path this drama developed. In this particular rust drama, JeanHeyd's pettiness caused him to go scorched earth over a perceived slight, once his talk was downgraded to a less prestigious slot. I have reiterated this over and over in several comments with you, and you keep twisting what I'm saying. JeanHeyd, and also you in another comment have claimed that there was a grand conspiracy to sabotage his work with no evidence whatsoever. The only fact in all this controversy is that he had a talk downgraded. Not even cancelled. > Just throwing accusations at people the way you're doing is actually a really shitty thing to do You should start practicing what you preach. How about providing evidence that JeanHeyds work was being sabotaged without merit? Or you just accuse others without evidence? Next time, stop changing what others are saying. Your conduct is not acceptable.
- mort96 3y ago
  On the topic of our commenting patterns here on HN, since you brought up mine... I just noticed that your account was created in 2017 but you have literally never commented anywhere, ever, nor submitted anything, before you came here to dunk on JeanHeyd. That's kinda odd. Not that it's wrong or invalidates what you're saying, I just found it strange.
  - wubalubadubdub 3y ago
    Is there a certain quota I have to have to comment on a post? Or are you just to poison the well, by going over my comment history? > Not that it's wrong or invalidates what you're saying I'm glad you realise that.
    - mort96 3y ago
      I'm not trying to poison the well. I legitimately found it weird, and I figured it wasn't out of place to bring up since you had already brought up my commenting patterns. If I offended you I apologize.

by mort96 3y ago

wubalubadubdub 3y ago

[flagged]

mort96 3y ago
In this thread, I am "running defence" for his right to choose a programming language that's not Rust. I don't think that's going too far. I don't understand why someone would be careful giving him grants just because the Rust leadership is utterly incompetent and creates drama.
- wubalubadubdub 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mort96 3y ago
    I don't know the details of the agreement (if any) between the Rust Foundation and Meneide, but if the Rust Foundation thinks that Meneide broke an agreement then I'll let them allege that. I don't know how much use there is to speculating about it. In any case, the Rust Project has made it clear that they're not interested in the compile time reflection the way Shepherd's Oasis was doing it, so I'm not sure what use there would be in completing that work. You seem to be jumping around in this conversation, unwilling to stick to one point. Earlier, it seemed like your main complaint was his conduct. When I challenged you on that, you didn't back that up, you jumped over to this grant money speculation. If your issue with him is that you suspect foul play regarding grant money, why didn't you lead with that? If your issue with him is his conduct, why didn't you attempt to make any arguments for why his conduct is problematic when challenged on it?
    - wubalubadubdub 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - mort96 3y ago
        Disagreeing with something isn't the same as glossing over it. You didn't say anything of substance, just an empty accusation of "fits of anger, uncharitable accusations to others, vindictiveness"; so there was nothing to address. > JeanHeyd has a tendency to take any criticism to his work, and his technical opinions has meritless. He has a history of implying that there's bigotry, and that objection is the same as obstruction. The very source of this issue is that there were apparently people in the leadership who took serious issues with the direction of the compile time proposal, but were seemingly unwilling to have the discussion about technical merits. If he has a history of creating drama from technical criticism of his work, this RustConf fiasco is certainly not an instance of that. You, however, have a history (in this discussion at least) of claiming something without backing it up. It would be very helpful if you actually linked to examples of him doing the things you're criticising him for, both on this point and the others.
        wubalubadubdub 3y ago
        [flagged]
        mort96 3y ago
        Listen, I'm getting tired of this discussion. If you link to anything at all which confirms your claim that his problem in the RustConf/compile-time computation debacle is that someone criticized his work on a technical level, I'll just accept that you're correct and move on. If not... well. I'm done.
        wubalubadubdub 3y ago
        I have through this discussion asserted that JeanHeid started this drama over a perceived slight for having his talk downgraded. I have separately mentioned that JeanHeyd is a person who has issue taking criticism, but I have not claimed in this thread that this rust debacle was precipitated by this trait of his. I did provide enough reasoning above for all this, but you again ignored, and didn't address any of it. You have claimed that people were sabotaging his work. The onus of the evidence is on you. All public statements we've seen are that there might have been concerns, but before these concerns were discussed, JeanHeyd went full nuclear mode over his talk getting downgraded.
slikrick 3y ago
it's very weird of you to basically only call out the above user's actions of... being in the thread, and not the actual merits of what they're saying. many of us will laugh at you as well, because you don't add anything to the conversation but pretend like you do
- wubalubadubdub 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mort96 3y ago
    You can't just accuse someone of going scorched earth on others for technical criticism, without backing that up. Talk about a specific instance where he has done that, ideally with links. Just throwing accusations at people the way you're doing is actually a really shitty thing to do. Even if he was 100% guilty of all the things you claim, your conduct is not acceptable.
    - wubalubadubdub 3y ago
      > going scorched earth on others for technical criticism I said JeanHeyd doesn't appreciate technical criticism, and I said he goes full scorched earth on others. However, I mentioned both in separate sentences. Please don't twist my words. You are the one linking them both, suggesting that one happened due to the other, when in fact I was merely describing aspects of his nasty personality in general, with no suggestion that this was the path this drama developed. In this particular rust drama, JeanHeyd's pettiness caused him to go scorched earth over a perceived slight, once his talk was downgraded to a less prestigious slot. I have reiterated this over and over in several comments with you, and you keep twisting what I'm saying. JeanHeyd, and also you in another comment have claimed that there was a grand conspiracy to sabotage his work with no evidence whatsoever. The only fact in all this controversy is that he had a talk downgraded. Not even cancelled. > Just throwing accusations at people the way you're doing is actually a really shitty thing to do You should start practicing what you preach. How about providing evidence that JeanHeyds work was being sabotaged without merit? Or you just accuse others without evidence? Next time, stop changing what others are saying. Your conduct is not acceptable.
mort96 3y ago
On the topic of our commenting patterns here on HN, since you brought up mine... I just noticed that your account was created in 2017 but you have literally never commented anywhere, ever, nor submitted anything, before you came here to dunk on JeanHeyd. That's kinda odd. Not that it's wrong or invalidates what you're saying, I just found it strange.
- wubalubadubdub 3y ago
  Is there a certain quota I have to have to comment on a post? Or are you just to poison the well, by going over my comment history? > Not that it's wrong or invalidates what you're saying I'm glad you realise that.
  - mort96 3y ago
    I'm not trying to poison the well. I legitimately found it weird, and I figured it wasn't out of place to bring up since you had already brought up my commenting patterns. If I offended you I apologize.