5 ms·

What was literally said didn't include the words "always" or "your dumb rust code". From the subtitles with slight manual fixes: > I suspect part of the proble

What was literally said didn't include the words "always" or "your dumb rust code". From the subtitles with slight manual fixes: > I suspect part of the problem here is you're trying to convince everyone to switch over to the religion as promulgated by rust and the reality is that ain't going to happen because we have 50 plus filesystems in Linux, they will not all be instantaneously converted over to rust. Before that happens we will continue to refactor code because we want to make the C code better. If it breaks rust bindings, at least for the foreseeable future the rust bindings are a second class citizen and those file systems that depend on the rust bindings will break and that is the rust bindings problem, not the file system community at large's problem and that's going to be true for a long long time, okay, and I think we just simply need to accept that That seems rather technical to me. To put words into their mouth because they had a snarky tone, or claim the presenter was "immediately stacked for spreading religion or whatever" hardly is.

cogman10 2y ago
They literally said "spreading your religion" at the very start of their critique. I think I'm correctly reading the tone of the rest of the comment even if I didn't verbatim quote them. From the closed captions with minor editing. In response to "we are going to provide API bindings" > I suspect the problem here is you are trying to convert everyone to the religion as promulgated by rust and the reality is that ain't gonna happen. Because we have 50 plus filesystems in linux and they will not all be instantaneously converted over to rust. Before that happens we will continue to refactor code because we want to make C code better. If that breaks the rust bindings at least for the foreseeable future the rust bindings are a second class citizen. Those file systems that depend on the rust bindings will break and that is the rust bindings problem not the file system community at large problem. And that's going to be true for a long long time, OK. And I think we just simply accept that right because the answer you are not allowed to refactor C code because it would break 5 critical file systems that distros depend on is like not a star, OK.
- computerthings 2y ago
  > They literally said "spreading your religion" at the very start of their critique. And that critique is near the end of all the people who asked questions or made comments. So no, the presenter wasn't "immediately stacked" when making that presentation.
- sgbeal 2y ago
  > They literally said "spreading your religion" at the very start of their critique. If you'll re-read the quote you claim to be literally quoting, nowhere does it say "spreading your religion": > > I suspect the problem here is you are trying to convert everyone to the religion as promulgated by rust...
  - colejohnson66 2y ago
    Potato pohtato
    - sgbeal 2y ago
      Keep that in mind someone literally misquotes what you "literally" said.
  - keybored 2y ago
    No, it says convert everyone to whatever religion is “promulgated by Rust”... which is a stronger accusation (spreading vs. converting everyone).
Kiro 2y ago
The actual quote was even worse.

cogman10 2y ago

They literally said "spreading your religion" at the very start of their critique. I think I'm correctly reading the tone of the rest of the comment even if I didn't verbatim quote them. From the closed captions with minor editing. In response to "we are going to provide API bindings" > I suspect the problem here is you are trying to convert everyone to the religion as promulgated by rust and the reality is that ain't gonna happen. Because we have 50 plus filesystems in linux and they will not all be instantaneously converted over to rust. Before that happens we will continue to refactor code because we want to make C code better. If that breaks the rust bindings at least for the foreseeable future the rust bindings are a second class citizen. Those file systems that depend on the rust bindings will break and that is the rust bindings problem not the file system community at large problem. And that's going to be true for a long long time, OK. And I think we just simply accept that right because the answer you are not allowed to refactor C code because it would break 5 critical file systems that distros depend on is like not a star, OK.

computerthings 2y ago
> They literally said "spreading your religion" at the very start of their critique. And that critique is near the end of all the people who asked questions or made comments. So no, the presenter wasn't "immediately stacked" when making that presentation.
sgbeal 2y ago
> They literally said "spreading your religion" at the very start of their critique. If you'll re-read the quote you claim to be literally quoting, nowhere does it say "spreading your religion": > > I suspect the problem here is you are trying to convert everyone to the religion as promulgated by rust...
- colejohnson66 2y ago
  Potato pohtato
  - sgbeal 2y ago
    Keep that in mind someone literally misquotes what you "literally" said.
- keybored 2y ago
  No, it says convert everyone to whatever religion is “promulgated by Rust”... which is a stronger accusation (spreading vs. converting everyone).

Kiro 2y ago

The actual quote was even worse.