Hacker News Reader

Comment by mustache_kimono | Hacker News Reader

At least they don't go around slandering programming language communities.

If we're going to be serious about who is being toxic, it's definitely Linus in this thread. Guy makes first mistake (by a very broad interpretation of "mistake". Perhaps "misunderstanding"?). Linus goes nuclear. And while his reasoning is sound, his argumentation cycles between threats, bad-faith arguments, and just plain old yelling.

What some people don't understand is that the Linux kernel isn't 'led' in any meaningful sense. But I suppose some projects don't need actual leadership? I once was recommended a Metallica documentary, because "It's amusing to see what emotionally stunted 40-50 year olds who have never had anyone tell them 'No' since 18 will do." That's the Linus vibe -- somehow we've limped along to here. Seriously, read the rust/rust-lang issues/RFCs. Those people sound like grownups contrasted to this.

View on HN

> Linus goes nuclear. And while his reasoning is sound, his argumentation cycles between threats, bad-faith arguments, and just plain old yelling.

In my opinion, in the software world, there is a large number of people who are very convinced of their own correctness. When they do something wrong or are simply mistaken, a gentle correction doesn't work. Linus is probably used to dealing with these people. I'm not saying the person he was replying to was necessarily doing that, but after a while you have an automatic response.

The beauty and horror of OSS is that anyone can contribute. Having someone scream "WTF are you doing???" every once in a while isn't a bad thing. It's not nice to hear that being directed at you, but sometimes in life it is necessary.

In light of this comment, one thing that makes me nervous about leading my own open-source project is that there might not be anyone who is willing to scream "WTF are you doing???" at me when I make a bad design decision.

Do you not have faith in yourself to receive feedback on your design if someone provided it in a less aggressive way?

> In my opinion, in the software world, there is a large number of people who are very convinced of their own correctness. When they do something wrong or are simply mistaken, a gentle correction doesn't work.

Too bad there was no around to do that to Linus; maybe he'd finally realize that being an asshole is generally not a correct response.

I think this is generally correct. The argument is "Linux is extraordinarily successful" but I think the counter is just as powerful "How many great features have not been implemented, because people have avoided working on the kernel or simply burnt out?"

...this is not at all Linus going nuclear. I don't see any threats or 'yelling'. He could have been more diplomatic, and I think Linus was actually trying to be. Diplomacy isn't his strongest suit. I don't think the first comment in his reply was necessarily appropriate, because it was directed at the person rather than the problem. I can also understand not wanting to mince words and establish a very firm boundary so it doesn't become a perennial conversation.

> At least they don't go around slandering programming language communities.

Not so sure about this. I see a good amount of acrimony toward C, C++, Go, Zig, etc. from the Rust side.

I think "acrimony" among languages (not language communities) is fine, like "you don't have an Option type?" or "you don't guarantee I won't have a use after free?". I think saying the "The Go/Rust/Zig community is uniquely toxic" crosses a line. And, to be very clear, if Rust people do it, I think it's awful as well.

It’s not unique to Rust’s community at all. I think they have relatively more visibility in places like HN, currently.

> Zig

In this case it seems to be mutual. Even open hostility from some leading members of Zig community. Which is shame because these two languages could nicely coexist.

> Linus goes nuclear.

By his own standards he’s been very polite and calm. Remarkably so I’d say.

He used to be way ruder in the past, then decided to work on that and be kinder.

You can clearly see that in those emails.

The fact that he doesn’t agree with somebody and articulates why doesn’t mean he’s rude.

Guy makes mistake and even after that continues discussion though he already heard the agreed argument?

I'm not understanding that if Linuxrusters want to do more their own thing and get rid of those rules and discussions they just fork off a real Linuxrustkernel and go off?

The "political correct" toxicity comes from that group which continously wants to undermine long beforehand agreeds frontiers... (e.g. again this panic-is-more-safe discussion).

> The "political correct" toxicity comes from that group which continously wants to undermine long beforehand agreeds frontiers

I have no idea what this actually refers to? "Panic is more safe"? Rust doesn't choose to panic on a failed memory allocation in the kernel, and never intended to. It was always TODO until it was implemented? Linus is using a userspace panic as an example here?

As to this thread's particular issue, the API for an allocation wasn't settled, and this is the discussion. I think the contributor was completely within his remit to say, "Heck, we could do this is a more memory safe way..." And Linus was completely right to say "Yeah, that's not how we do allocations here." The only problem is thinking being a dick is a good way to lead a community.

I think some fantasize about being able to be a dick in a FOSS project just like Linus (which feels like "if only I was a strong man dictator"), and I think that's an absurd desire. The Linux kernel is sui generis. In no other area of the world can anyone act this way, and be productive.

It might be difficult to back out kernel changes versus userspace changes. App-level concerns with leaky abstractions could follow functional programming, immutable state, fail-fast, and all sorts of gospel--but there's still a kernel doing stuff behind the scenes.

If the kernel acquiesces to certain philosophies that are opposite to its intent as-a-kernel for many other environments and contexts it must support, a cascade of later patches could derail things completely. It may become too much effort to undo, and the project must limp along--until that mountain of tech debt costs too much to fix.

Maybe the kernel cannot fail fast for good reasons. And the Linux project cannot fail fast for equally good reasons.

And possibly, if a technically compelling reason presents itself, Linus may fully back it--even contributing to that work himself.

Threats? Slander? Do you feel that you're "speaking for a community" here?

Heck no! And I can't imagine anyone thinking I was?

The threat is pretty clear? "If Rust people don't get this, we will have to part ways." This is an ultimatum? It's crazy girlfriend/boyfriend material? It's ridiculous after one contributor tries something that Linus thinks won't work in the kernel. Ridiculous. Just say no.

The slander as well? "Rust’s community, in aggregate, have developed a reputation." And you know what? The C/C++/Zig/Nim/Haskell/Clojure communities have developed a reputation too, but, gosh, I don't talk about it because I know labeling groups isn't helpful/is completely non-technical.

> "If Rust people don't get this, we will have to part ways."

What are you quoting? I don't see this anywhere in the thread.

The nearest I see is:

    If you cannot get over the fact that the kernel may have other
    requirements that trump any language standards, we really can't work
    together.

A reasonable, politely delivered, statement directed to an individual as opposed to Rust. It was in response to this rather cringy bit of lecturing:

    No one is talking about absolute safety guarantees. I am talking about
    specific ones that Rust makes: these are well-documented and formally
    defined.

Rust has no formal language specification yet. It's still "an area of research," to paraphrase what is said when the question is asked. No defined memory model either; from the current Rust reference:

    Rust does not yet have a defined memory model. Various academics
    and industry professionals are working on various proposals, but
    for now, this is an under-defined place in the language.

One could argue (not me; I'm far too pragmatic for such things) that Linus is being exceptionally generous in entertaining Rust in its current state.

FWIW, I actually mostly agree with Linus.

I was paraphrasing. I didn't want to write a page length comment, and won't here, but there were a few more instances of similar ultimatums (like "Or, you know, if you can't deal with the rules that the kernel requires, then just don't do kernel programming.") And all are similarly ridiculous/dickish. Really no need for such dramatic convulsions, Linus, where Wedson was simply trying to explain the API expectations of the Rust language.

Re: the rest, I think you are conflating Rust's UB guarantees with a specified memory model.

> I was paraphrasing.

You put it in quotes and didn't mention any paraphrasing. Linus didn't write it.

> Rust's UB guarantees

Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees? Rust doesn't have one as far as I know.

> You put it in quotes and didn't mention any paraphrasing. Linus didn't write it.

I think it's a fair characterization of what was said. Feel free, as everyone is, to read the entire thread again. I'm not a journalist. You have the primary source at your finger tips!

> Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees?

You're looking at the Rust reference right? https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-unde...

> You're looking at the Rust reference right?

Not normative, as stated here[1], linked from the page you cite.

[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/index.html

Okay? Do you think you have you quibbled enough? To be clear, I still think it's fine for Wedson to inform him even if the document is not a normative reference/specification? Even if these are just the expectations of API/Rust users?

> the expectations of API/Rust users?

Pointing out whatever those are is fine. Linus pointing out the expectations of the Linux kernel is fine too, and no amount of invoking fictional formalisms trumps them.

I 100% agree. And if you read my comments you'd realize, I agree with Linus on the substance. I think the way he said it was dick-ish. That's it!

> I think it's a fair characterization of what was said.

I think inventing Linus quotes is unfair.

Again, not a journalist? You/everyone are supposed to have read the primary source, as it's the linked subject of our discussion. I think whatever expectations of fairness we have for internet comments -- I have far exceeded them. And now we have your comment pointing out... whatever it is you wanted to point out. Reader beware!

The difference is these communities don’t have advocates spamming every technical thing they can find crapping on everyone else and proclaiming their favored language/tech to be indisputably superior in every case.

If you don't think the Rust "community" receives the same sort of spam arguments from anti-Rust folks, then you're kidding yourself. And, yes, I completely understand that such arguments are super annoying. But the wrong response in my view is to answer with another stupid argument ("The Rust community is the problem.")

Was Wedson acting in an untoward way here that in some way exemplifies something significant about the Rust community? No, not really. So, yeah, I think your comment above is a pointless low blow, cheap shot, an excuse to act nasty about some super annoying Rust comment you probably read months ago. And it just sounds like whining to me.

Extraordinary claims ought to be supported by extraordinary evidence. Those are some serious accusations you make.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com