But why bother with that when you can write passive-aggressive blog posts that are devoid of useful information about the errors that were encountered instead.
But why bother with that when you can write passive-aggressive blog posts that are devoid of useful information about the errors that were encountered instead.
You don't even have to be affecred by it on any of your programs to want to point it out and criticize it...
Rust does not claim perfect backwards compatibility. For instance, unstable features have no backwards compatibility promise.
I don't have to prepare for the possibility of having live tech support open whenever I update the Go binary in my projects. Rust advocates should not try to suggest this is reasonable.
If the Rust compiler developers intend to provide backwards compatibility, but accidentally make a change that breaks that, then that is absolutely 100% a bug. You are allowed to prefer that the software you use has minimal bugs, but you are deluding yourself if you think that the Go compiler (or essentially any other piece of software) is bug free.
Perhaps that makes this a Firefox bug, but given Firefox's historical relationship with Rust, that's not a good look for the Rust community either.
> In this case it looks like something in a Cargo.toml in Firefox wasn't to the taste of the newer version of Cargo. Presumably it was valid back then but not any more.
They may have also meant "a new dependency version broke", not literally that Cargo couldn't understand Cargo.toml. Need more details.
i am immediately annoyed by the author using this rhetorical flourish
> But they never made this complaint in the actual Bugzilla where someone could consider their feedback, they skipped straight to the "complain via blog post" phase. [...] My advice to the author is that perhaps they should extend a little more charity and "just ask" first, before they jump at the opportunity to complain in public - without having mentioned the issue to anyone with the ability to fix it.
Which comment links in turn to another post, for which the blogger writes,
> I would file a bug report but I cannot imagine that Fedora would accept it. They already know that this feature doesn't work; it's right there in the DKMS manpage. It's there anyway because, well, I don't know. This is the most user-hostile decision I think I've ever seen Fedora make.
but in fact the issue was fixed within a week of reporting it.
Firefox, in particular, uses the not-so-secret escape switch to unlock Rust nightly features on Rust stable. A bunch of folks on the Rust team are pretty unhappy about this (see e.g. https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/6627), but it is the current situation. So "Firefox broke after I ran rustup" is a very different complaint from "My code, on Rust stable, without the secret escape switch broke after I ran rustup," and the blame (if there is any blame at all, which is unclear without the actual error report) is on the Firefox developers, not the Rust developers.
In the general case, the Rust folks care a lot about backwards compatibility, but in turn they do that with an eye towards never having a Rust 2.0. They've taken a lot of innovative steps towards making Rust 1.x usable indefinitely, including the nightly/unstable system, the epoch system, crater, etc. A consequence of staying on Rust 1.x indefinitely is that you cannot possibly be bug-for-bug compatible with Rust 1.0 and Cargo 1.0 for all theoretically possible code (see Hyrum's Law: https://www.hyrumslaw.com/). However, if something breaks in the real world, report it, and I expect the Rust developers will be sympathetic and try to fix it. Without any indication of what broke, nobody can do anything with this post except get unactionably mad at other people, and that's pretty useless for actually getting things done.
The author is, of course, free to blog whatever he likes. But I think the HN community should stop upvoting his clickbait posts.
Sadly there is some cult around the whole community... although I find the core developers to be pretty great.