Ask HN: Rinf copies flutter_rust_bridge, says bridge bad, claims rinf ultimate
Rinf copies a lot of code of flutter_rust_bridge, and it uses bridge's idea for homepage center demo. However, rinf seems to not want to tell people it uses bridge, says that bridge is bad and rinf is "the ultimate solution", while rinf is not user-friendly.
Every single thing looks normal, but it makes me confused after adding all together. I always thought open source is that people help each other and work hard together, so I cannot understand this situation. Since HN are from a wide range of fields, I hope to ask HN: What should I do? Thank you!
Details:
Rinf copy-pasted bridge's source code, with modifications as follows: Delete comments mentioning bridge, change a bit of logic that does not need to be changed here, and rename things, etc (details in appendix). Rinf uses bridge to do generation during development, and most code are bridge's when running rinf.
As for the big gif demo at center of rinf front page (website [1], GitHub [2]), it is bridge's idea - using mathematical Mandelbrot Set to illustrate algorithms in Rust and UI in Flutter. As we know, anything using Flutter+Rust can be a demo here. Among the countless possibilities, two libraries choose the same. The probability seems quite low.
However, rinf seems to not want people to know the fact that rinf copies bridge a lot. On one hand, rinf only says bridge "gave inspiration to the structure of" rinf [3]. On the other hand, when mentioning bridge (e.g. [4], [5], [6]), rinf does not mention it uses bridge. This seems different from the behaviors of open source libraries I usually see.
Rinf claims to be "the ultimate solution for developing beautiful and performant apps" [1], and says bridge is bad (same link as above). However, rinf is indeed not user-friendly, which is shown below.
On one hand, compared with other libraries, rinf seems to not be the "ultimate" it claims to users. For example, to implement the rinf tutorial task, rinf requires users to write more than twice amount of code than bridge. As another instance, for the typical scenario "state" which users asked in both libraries, rinf needs >5x more code than bridge, and also need more complex logic. (details in appendix)
On the other hand, compared with rinf itself, if rinf writes a bit more code, it will be much more convenient for users. For example, considering the official rinf example again, users could have written less than half amount of code using slightly updated rinf vs original rinf. (details in appendix)
Appendix(https://github.com/fzyzcjy/ask_hackernews_appendix): Text and code that are too long to be put in HN, as well as links [1]-[6].