The universalization from one developer's post to all Rust "fanatics" is itself an unwelcome attack. I prefer to keep my discussion as civilized as possible.
I read that more as "here's a perfect example of something I'd noticed already" rather than "wow this is a terrible first impression your group is making".
Perhaps this reading is colored by how this same pair of sentiments seems to come up practically every single time there's a push to change the language for some project.
I think you'll experience some pushback on the assertion that that particular quote has a lot of arrogance or disdain in it.
Building large legacy projects can be difficult and tapping into a thriving ecosystem of packages might be a good thing. But it's also possible to have "shiny object" or "grass is greener" syndrome.
Is it arrogant or a clear and straightforward announcement that a Decision has been made and these are the consequences? I'm not seeing any arrogance in the message myself.
"Arrogant" does not mean "forceful" or "assertive" or "makes me angry".
This is forceful, assertive, and probably makes people angry.
Does the speaker have the authority to make this happen? Because if so, this is just a mandate and it's hard to find some kind of moral failing with a change in development direction communicated clearly.
How is this arrogant? Are open source developers now responsible for ensuring every fork works with the dependencies and changes they make?
This seems like a long window, given to ports to say, "we are making changes that may impact you, heads up." The options presented are, frankly, the two primary options "add the dependency or tell people you are no longer a current port".
> I think you'll experience some pushback on the assertion that that particular quote has a lot of arrogance or disdain in it.
It's just a roundabout way of saying "anything that isn't running Rust isn't a REAL computer". Which is pretty clearly an arrogant statement, I don't see any other way of interpreting it.
Be real for a second. People are arguing against Rust because it supports fewer target architectures than GCC. Which of the target architectures do you believe if important enough that it should decide the future development of apt?
I won't be real for a second, because this isn't about that.
Arguing that support for certain architectures should be removed because they see very little real world use is totally valid. But it's possible to do so in a respectful way, without displaying such utter contept for anyone who might disagree.
I read it as a straightforward way of saying "support for a few mostly unused architectures is all that is holding us back from adopting rust, and adopting rust is viewed as a good thing"
from the outside it looks like a defense mechanism from a group of developers who have been suffering crusades against them ever since a very prolific c developer decided rust would be a good fit for this rather successful project he created in his youth.
Maybe they wouldn't experience so much pushback if they were more humble, had more respect for established software and practices, and were more open to discussion.
You can't go around screaming "your code SUCKS and you need to rewrite it my way NOW" at everyone all the time and expect people to not react negatively.
> You can't go around screaming "your code SUCKS and you need to rewrite it my way NOW"
It seems you are imagining things and hate people for the things you imagined.
In reality there are situations where during technical discussions some people stand up and with trembling voice start derailing these technical discussions with "arguments" like "you are trying to convince everyone to switch over to the religion".
https://youtu.be/WiPp9YEBV0Q?t=1529
I disagree very strongly that a suggestion to change something is also a personal attack on the author of the original code. That’s not a professional or constructive attitude.
Are you serious? It's basically impossible to discuss C/C++ anymore without someone bringing up Rust.
If you search for HN posts with C++ in the title from the last year, the top post is about how C++ sucks and Rust is better. The fourth result is a post titled "C++ is an absolute blast" and the comments contain 128 (one hundred and twenty eight) mentions of the word "Rust". It's ridiculous.
Lots of current and former C++ developers are excited about Rust, so it’s natural that it comes up in similar conversations. But bringing up Rust in any conversation still does not amount to a personal attack, and I would encourage some reflection here if that is your first reaction.
To be clear, the "you" and "my" in your sentence refer to the same person. Julian appears to be the APT maintainer, so there's no compulsion except what he applies to himself.
(Maybe you mean this in some general sense, but the actual situation at hand doesn't remotely resemble a hostile unaffiliated demand against a project.)
Most of the repelling is happening on the anti-Rust side. The hate and vitriol has chased away Wedson Almeida Filho, Alex Gaynor, Hector Martin and Christoph Hellwig from the Rust in Linux project.
No, honestly Rust has just really crappy attitude and culture. Even as a person who should naturally like Rust and I do plan to learn it despite that I find these people really grating.
As evidenced by this very comment chain. I've seen, by far, way more comment from people annoyed by vegans. I can't even remember the last time I've heard a vegan discuss it outside of just stating the food preference when we got out to eat.
As a vegetarian on ethical grounds (mostly due to factory farming of meat) I politely disagree with your assessment.
I have to decline and explain in social settings all the time, because I will not eat meat served to me. But I do not need to preach when I observe others eating meat. I, like all humans, have a finite amount of time and energy. I'd rather spend that time focused on where I think it will do the greatest good. And that's rarely explaining why factory farming of meat is truly evil.
The best time is when someone asks, "why don't you eat meat?" Then you can have a conversation. Otherwise I've found it best to just quietly and politely decline, as more often than not one can be accommodated easily. (Very occasionally, though, someone feels it necessary to try and score imaginary points on you because they have some axe to grind against vegetarians and vegans. I've found it best to let them burn themselves out and move on. Life's too short to worry about them.)
it's not just a dietary choice and it's a personal lifestyle in the sense of it being your choice, but not in the sense of a lifestyle which is limited to your private space.
You think it's wrong abusing animals. Why would you relate that only to you and think it would be ok for others to abuse them? You wouldn't
Frankly, I more often see meat eaters get defensive. We got to a restaurant, the vegan guy gets a meatless meal. The vegan guy gets bombarded with "Oh, you don't eat meat?" "Why?" "What's wrong with eating meat?" "I just like having a steak now and then."
