5 ms·

The master branch is active and people use Eigen today. The Discord has maintainers that are still active. Not sure how it could be considered "dead"?

by sevagh 2y ago

infamouscow 2y ago
The rise of frontend developers over the last 5 years learned everything must be new. That a math library of all things could be complete is several orders of thinking beyond their ability. I'm sure the gut reaction is to downvote this for the embarrassing criticism, but in all seriousness, this is the right answer.
- klaussilveira 2y ago
  What? You mean I don't need to refactor and break API every 6 months?
- sevagh 2y ago
  I realize asking for a new 4.0 release is fair (and the GitLab issue does have a highly upvoted request for a release). But you can't just call things "dead" for no reason, it's in poor taste. It's feature-complete, not dead!
  - stanleykm 2y ago
    Sure code can be “feature complete” but the reality is the rest of the world changes, so there will be more and more friction for your users over time. For example someone in the issue mentions they need to use mainline to use eigen with cuda now.
    - infamouscow 2y ago
      Mathematics is a priori. It's beyond the world changing. You might be surprised to learn we still use Euclid's geometry despite it being thousands of years old. What you're actually saying is you expect open source maintainers to add arbitrary functionality for free.
      - _xivi 2y ago
        > Mathematics is a priori Sure, but the discussion here is about a software library not the math concepts
        infamouscow 2y ago
        Software programs are equivalent to mathematical proofs. [1] Short of a bug in the implementation, there has yet to be a valid explanation for why mathematics libraries need to be continuously maintained. If I published an NPM library called left-add, which adds the left parameter to the right parameter (read: addition) how long, exactly, should I expect to maintain this for others? The only explanation so far is that scumbags expect open source library maintainers to slave away indefinitely. The further we steer into the weeds of ignorant explanations, the more I'm inclined to believe this really is the underlying rationale. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...
        _xivi 2y ago
        There are many reasons why a library require continuous maintainance even when it's "feature-complete", off the top of my head: 1. Bug fixes 2. Security issues 3. Optimization 4. Compatibility/Adapt to landscape changes People pointing flaws in a library aren't "scumbags that expect open source library maintainers to slave away indefinitely" No one is forcing the maintainer to "slave away", they can step down any time and say I'm not up for this role anymore. Those interested will fork the library and carry the torch. No need to be so defensive and insult others just for giving feedback.
        infamouscow 2y ago
        I think you’ve constructing a strawman, arguing for general software libraries. We're talking specifically about math libraries. Regardless of the strawman, the person(s) that authored the code don’t owe you anything. They don’t have to step down, make an announcement, or merge your changes just because you can’t read or comprehend the license text that says very clearly in all capital letters the software is warrantied for no purpose once so ever, implied or otherwise. If one had a patch and was eager to see it upstreamed quickly, it seems like you’re arguing the maintenance status actually doesn’t matter. Since "[t]hose interested will fork the library and carry the torch" if the patch isn’t merged expediently. But if you're confident the interested will fork and carry the torch, why do you think you're entitled to force the author(s) giving software warrantied for no purpose should step down. That's genuinely deranged, and my insults appear to be accurate descriptions rather than ad hominem attacks since no coherent explanation has been provided as to why the four reasons given somehow supersede the authors chosen license.

The master branch is active and people use Eigen today. The Discord has maintainers that are still active. Not sure how it could be considered "dead"?

by sevagh 2y ago

The master branch is active and people use Eigen today. The Discord has maintainers that are still active. Not sure how it could be considered "dead"?

infamouscow 2y ago

The rise of frontend developers over the last 5 years learned everything must be new. That a math library of all things could be complete is several orders of thinking beyond their ability. I'm sure the gut reaction is to downvote this for the embarrassing criticism, but in all seriousness, this is the right answer.

klaussilveira 2y ago
What? You mean I don't need to refactor and break API every 6 months?
sevagh 2y ago
I realize asking for a new 4.0 release is fair (and the GitLab issue does have a highly upvoted request for a release). But you can't just call things "dead" for no reason, it's in poor taste. It's feature-complete, not dead!
- stanleykm 2y ago
  Sure code can be “feature complete” but the reality is the rest of the world changes, so there will be more and more friction for your users over time. For example someone in the issue mentions they need to use mainline to use eigen with cuda now.
  - infamouscow 2y ago
    Mathematics is a priori. It's beyond the world changing. You might be surprised to learn we still use Euclid's geometry despite it being thousands of years old. What you're actually saying is you expect open source maintainers to add arbitrary functionality for free.
    - _xivi 2y ago
      > Mathematics is a priori Sure, but the discussion here is about a software library not the math concepts
      - infamouscow 2y ago
        Software programs are equivalent to mathematical proofs. [1] Short of a bug in the implementation, there has yet to be a valid explanation for why mathematics libraries need to be continuously maintained. If I published an NPM library called left-add, which adds the left parameter to the right parameter (read: addition) how long, exactly, should I expect to maintain this for others? The only explanation so far is that scumbags expect open source library maintainers to slave away indefinitely. The further we steer into the weeds of ignorant explanations, the more I'm inclined to believe this really is the underlying rationale. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...
        _xivi 2y ago
        There are many reasons why a library require continuous maintainance even when it's "feature-complete", off the top of my head: 1. Bug fixes 2. Security issues 3. Optimization 4. Compatibility/Adapt to landscape changes People pointing flaws in a library aren't "scumbags that expect open source library maintainers to slave away indefinitely" No one is forcing the maintainer to "slave away", they can step down any time and say I'm not up for this role anymore. Those interested will fork the library and carry the torch. No need to be so defensive and insult others just for giving feedback.
        infamouscow 2y ago
        I think you’ve constructing a strawman, arguing for general software libraries. We're talking specifically about math libraries. Regardless of the strawman, the person(s) that authored the code don’t owe you anything. They don’t have to step down, make an announcement, or merge your changes just because you can’t read or comprehend the license text that says very clearly in all capital letters the software is warrantied for no purpose once so ever, implied or otherwise. If one had a patch and was eager to see it upstreamed quickly, it seems like you’re arguing the maintenance status actually doesn’t matter. Since "[t]hose interested will fork the library and carry the torch" if the patch isn’t merged expediently. But if you're confident the interested will fork and carry the torch, why do you think you're entitled to force the author(s) giving software warrantied for no purpose should step down. That's genuinely deranged, and my insults appear to be accurate descriptions rather than ad hominem attacks since no coherent explanation has been provided as to why the four reasons given somehow supersede the authors chosen license.