3 ms·

I don’t know what it looks like, but it’s definitely not forcing people to accept it. Rust right now just isn’t in a form that some (I personally think most) p

I don’t know what it looks like, but it’s definitely not forcing people to accept it. Rust right now just isn’t in a form that some (I personally think most) people can accept. Maybe it’s just that it’s so not-c-like. … given your language examples, maybe the main issue is just that rust is just so different. I personally find the rust language to be non intuitive… but what’s intuitive for me is heavily informed by c/c++ or python

perching_aix 2y ago
What I was kind of getting at is that I cannot imagine a new language being introduced without friction, regardless of how organically that happens, and that you probably don't either. Obviously, there's room for a middle ground here, where we recognize that these are absolutes, and so we start debating whether what would be a less friction inducing way. This could then split into whether it's Rust the language that's causing the friction that exists, or the community on either side. Personally, I don't see a less friction inducing way being possible, and according to the people involved, it's a mix of both the language and the communities that this friction is the way it is - and I find that to be pretty believable, honestly. Not only that, and we're getting to very philosophical heights here I admit, but I think this is a pervasive issue with how people usually reason about hardships: that there must always exist a solution to problems. I don't think that's true. I think that things sometimes suck, and there's no way around them, you can only balance between the ways they suck (dilemma instead of a problem). I further think it is all too often this reach-for-a-solution is exploited in rhetoric (and of course, it wouldn't be life without examples for the exact opposite too). It's also a bit like being down. Sometimes it's justified, and there's no need to "correct" or change it.
kelnos 2y ago
> it’s definitely not forcing people to accept it Wait, you mean you've worked on projects where you've achieved unanimous agreement on any large technical decision, ever? No, sometimes people need to be forced to accept change. The whole "disagree and commit" thing. Humans are strange creatures; we often resist change for the sake of resisting change, regardless of whether or not the change is good for us. When it comes to the Linux kernel, what Torvalds says is law. He certainly isn't going to go against what many/most of his trusted maintainers want, but ultimately he's going to decide what's best for the project, based on his own reasoning, and the choices are to get on board, or find another project to work on. It wouldn't be the first time he's "forced" people to accept something that he's decided on.
shakow 2y ago
> but it’s definitely not forcing people to accept it. No one is forced to accept it. The big whiny outbursts from the old guard was when the RfL guys asked them to specify their implementations; they were never asked to touch a LoC of Rust even with a 10ft pole.

perching_aix 2y ago

What I was kind of getting at is that I cannot imagine a new language being introduced without friction, regardless of how organically that happens, and that you probably don't either. Obviously, there's room for a middle ground here, where we recognize that these are absolutes, and so we start debating whether what would be a less friction inducing way. This could then split into whether it's Rust the language that's causing the friction that exists, or the community on either side. Personally, I don't see a less friction inducing way being possible, and according to the people involved, it's a mix of both the language and the communities that this friction is the way it is - and I find that to be pretty believable, honestly. Not only that, and we're getting to very philosophical heights here I admit, but I think this is a pervasive issue with how people usually reason about hardships: that there must always exist a solution to problems. I don't think that's true. I think that things sometimes suck, and there's no way around them, you can only balance between the ways they suck (dilemma instead of a problem). I further think it is all too often this reach-for-a-solution is exploited in rhetoric (and of course, it wouldn't be life without examples for the exact opposite too). It's also a bit like being down. Sometimes it's justified, and there's no need to "correct" or change it.

kelnos 2y ago

> it’s definitely not forcing people to accept it Wait, you mean you've worked on projects where you've achieved unanimous agreement on any large technical decision, ever? No, sometimes people need to be forced to accept change. The whole "disagree and commit" thing. Humans are strange creatures; we often resist change for the sake of resisting change, regardless of whether or not the change is good for us. When it comes to the Linux kernel, what Torvalds says is law. He certainly isn't going to go against what many/most of his trusted maintainers want, but ultimately he's going to decide what's best for the project, based on his own reasoning, and the choices are to get on board, or find another project to work on. It wouldn't be the first time he's "forced" people to accept something that he's decided on.

shakow 2y ago

> but it’s definitely not forcing people to accept it. No one is forced to accept it. The big whiny outbursts from the old guard was when the RfL guys asked them to specify their implementations; they were never asked to touch a LoC of Rust even with a 10ft pole.