Hacker News Reader

Comment by Sir_Cmpwn | Hacker News Reader

I'm offering you an olive branch here. You can pile on the snark, or you can take my offer to issue a correction to my article.

Edit: found the hostility. Fine, I won't issue a correction. I didn't find Steve's arguments entirely correct and I was willing to add a note to the page letting him share his perspective so the reader could make up their mind. Now I'm less open to that.

View on HN

It does sound a little snarky but at the same time it's a real good point -- the article says "... met with hostility from the Rust & Cargo teams" and yet you cite "largely based on this discussion [of some other team using Rust to develop their project]."

So if this is an error on your part, maybe you could issue a correction without a specific comment or rebuttal from anyone.

EDIT: your edit makes you seem a little rash. I get that it might be overwhelming because the Rust Evangelism Strike Force (†) has showed up here but take some time to appreciate what folks are writing. Your article regarding Rust is naturally controversial and is filled with good points and bad ones. People will naturally pile on the bad ones.

(†) Tongue in cheek, I'm probably a charter member

It's a pretty wild world where someone makes a claim about an entire project charter based entirely off of a single random comment on github, and then the folks who claim that's wrong and cite project documentation are "the Rust Evangelism Strike Force," even in jest.

I meant the HN comments section for this article as a whole. It went from very few comments to very many comments in a short amount of time.

Write a flamebait article, and you should expect flames.

Your article includes a fully unsubstantiated claim based on a discussion from an unrelated project. Asking someone else to do something to fix your mistake is ludicrous and is in no way "offering an olive branch".

Steve has a point. You took what is essentially a random person on the internets comment as a true statement about a project.

Why is it someone else's responsibility to correct your article? You based your accusation of hostility on hearsay, it's on you to correct that error.

This is a very bad look, actively looking to punish others because they didn’t “accept your olive branch” after pointing out a mistake. I’d recommend you rethink your approach here.

I just think it’s absurd that @Sir_Cmpwn is using the rhetoric of peace and war in a discussion about a programming language.

> Edit: found the hostility

Share for those following along at home?

Someone disagreed with him, apparently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com