3 ms·

Where were these things promised to you? I was there then too, and maybe one or two of these things were relevant if you squint, but also many of them were acti

Where were these things promised to you? I was there then too, and maybe one or two of these things were relevant if you squint, but also many of them were actively not promised.

LucidLynx 1y ago
I agree that those were not actually "promises" but "directions", and I apologise for that. Those directions were mainly cited in different conferences by some Rust-head-members at that time (Alex Crichton, Niko Matsakis, Ashley Williams, or even you), and during conversations I had with severals during Rust Fest or RustCon. For example, I remember talking that with you at the Rust Fest 2017, in Zurich actually, especially about the *very early version* of Async/Await. It is ok for the community to move on different directions than the first one, and I don't blame any of you for that.
- steveklabnik 1y ago
  Niko and Alex were the only ones in leadership in 2013, I didn't until 2014, and Ashley later. Rust Fest and Rust Con didn't come along until much later. > It is ok for the community to move on different directions than the first one I agree, I just disagree with your characterization of "the first one." There were differences between the original Rust and what shipped, but almost none of it has to do with what you've said. In 2012-2013, Rust very explicitly changed a lot across time, and now it certainly does not. Async/await drove a lot of that adoption. Rust was always "political", even before 2012.
ratmice 1y ago
> * With a great non-political community (actually, this is the biggest lie of all). I recall the opposite, that the rust language (before the foundation) position was that being apolitical was a political stance. This is not the exact message I remember https://x.com/rustlang/status/1267519582505512960 https://x.com/rustlang/status/1267519582505512960 and also can't realistically cover the entire community at large, as if that even has a single political stance.
- jdright 1y ago
  The group that insists on keeping a community or software project 'non-political' often fails to recognize that this stance is itself a political position. They claim to want a neutral space, but what they really mean is that the existing political view does not align with their own. By dismissing other perspectives as 'political' while treating their own as neutral, they end up being both hypocritical and unwilling (or unable) to acknowledge that their opinions are political too.

Where were these things promised to you? I was there then too, and maybe one or two of these things were relevant if you squint, but also many of them were actively not promised.

LucidLynx 1y ago

I agree that those were not actually "promises" but "directions", and I apologise for that. Those directions were mainly cited in different conferences by some Rust-head-members at that time (Alex Crichton, Niko Matsakis, Ashley Williams, or even you), and during conversations I had with severals during Rust Fest or RustCon. For example, I remember talking that with you at the Rust Fest 2017, in Zurich actually, especially about the *very early version* of Async/Await. It is ok for the community to move on different directions than the first one, and I don't blame any of you for that.

steveklabnik 1y ago
Niko and Alex were the only ones in leadership in 2013, I didn't until 2014, and Ashley later. Rust Fest and Rust Con didn't come along until much later. > It is ok for the community to move on different directions than the first one I agree, I just disagree with your characterization of "the first one." There were differences between the original Rust and what shipped, but almost none of it has to do with what you've said. In 2012-2013, Rust very explicitly changed a lot across time, and now it certainly does not. Async/await drove a lot of that adoption. Rust was always "political", even before 2012.

ratmice 1y ago

> * With a great non-political community (actually, this is the biggest lie of all). I recall the opposite, that the rust language (before the foundation) position was that being apolitical was a political stance. This is not the exact message I remember https://x.com/rustlang/status/1267519582505512960 https://x.com/rustlang/status/1267519582505512960 and also can't realistically cover the entire community at large, as if that even has a single political stance.

jdright 1y ago
The group that insists on keeping a community or software project 'non-political' often fails to recognize that this stance is itself a political position. They claim to want a neutral space, but what they really mean is that the existing political view does not align with their own. By dismissing other perspectives as 'political' while treating their own as neutral, they end up being both hypocritical and unwilling (or unable) to acknowledge that their opinions are political too.