Hacker News Reader

Comment by thecleaner | Hacker News Reader

Who was the angry guy who was shouting ?

Unless I'm mistaken, LWN suggests it's Ted Ts'o

Ted's objection is perfectly reasonable, and the way that Linux works and has always worked internally. If an internal (not userspace) API changes then code that uses that API has to be fixed. He also quite reasonably says that it'll take time to understand the trade-offs of encoding constraints into the type system.

Bringing out silly and absurd strawmen attacks like "you're trying to convince everyone to switch over to the religion as promulgated by Rust" is anything but "perfectly reasonable".

maybe. but is it really FALSE?

anyway, the point of the resignation is not wanting to deal with all this, not necessarily taking a side, so I’m not even disagreeing with you. But obviously, it is a disagreeable atmosphere. I don’t find that debatable, even if that’s due to people feeling paranoid about a (nonexistent?) rust religious takeover.

I think we can all admit Rust definitely has its ideologues and cult acolytes.

Yes, it's really false. They weren't saying that maintainers couldn't change the API nor that the maintainers who changed the API had to update the Rust part, just that they needed to tell the Rust maintainers what they did and what they intended so that they could correctly encode their underlying assumptions in code.

In other words, they simply requested adequate documentation and the response was "I'M NOT LEARNING RUST AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME", effectively. That is nontechnical nonsense

> They weren't saying that maintainers couldn't change the API nor that the maintainers who changed the API had to update the Rust part

So maintainer would have to either wait for Rust team to update their API or learn Rust.

Seems like an unnecessary dependency.

Yes, the burden on the C maintainers is low but not zero. In a shared project, other people matter too. If you don't like it you should just work on solo projects.

The religion known as C-ism is sabotaging Linux.

Not really, as the only point he made wasn't under discussion or in conflict at all. The bulk of the words he said were intended to deliver other messages. I took the time to explain it in some detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41396677

It's deeply ineffective engineering communication. Below a professional standard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com