Framework Developer 'Ragequits' Open Source Community, Citing Negative Comments, Lack of Help

[erek]

Hmm :-\

"The episode demonstrates that expert developers are often not expert in managing the human relations aspect of projects that can become significant. It also shows how some contributors and users do not practice best behaviour in online interactions, forgetting the extent of the work done by volunteers and for which, it's worth noting, they have paid nothing.

Positive recent developments may mean that Actix development continues, that bugs and security vulnerabilities are fixed, and that its community gets a better handle on how to proceed constructively. "

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/21/rust_actix_web_framework_maintainer_quits/

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I've never heard of this project before.

But yeah, there's no surprise. The programmers who take on these tasks are usually well into the autism spectrum and can't deal with people for shit, and obsess over pointless details on their "perfect" little project, and insult and drive away anyone who doesn't exactly agree with their perfect little vision.

 

[jiminator]

the big names have their flaws and stupidities, so no surprises there

 

[SecretStash]

tough situation where they want "safe-only" code, which will make everything perform worse. It's hard answering to arm chair quarterbacks when though their suggestions have truth, they also possibly risk making the project die due to usability (probably an exaggeration here).

 

[1_rick]

The programmers who take on these tasks are usually well into the autism spectrum and can't deal with people for shit

I think we had a topic about this a week or two ago. The Reg is using people's real names, though, so it sounds different.

The issue seems to be that a lot of people were giving him grief about safe v. unsafe code in Rust and being really nasty about it and he eventually got tired of it.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

tough situation where they want "safe-only" code, which will make everything perform worse. It's hard answering to arm chair quarterbacks when though their suggestions have truth, they also possibly risk making the project die due to usability (probably an exaggeration here).

Safe by default is essentially the point of Rust -- so I get the desire.

But yeah, there's an 'unsafe' reserved word for a reason.

 

[Lakados]

Safe and unsafe mean very little, you can use plenty of unsafe code place it in a wrapper and secure it that way. You can also use nothing but safe code and leave it completely exposed negating any safety it could provide. Furthermore it’s only Safe for now, it’s bugs and exploits just haven’t been discovered or are considered inconsequential.

open source burn out isn’t new, and they may find somebody to step up and take the reins. Beat of luck to everybody involved...

 

[btgorman]

Safe and unsafe mean very little, you can use plenty of unsafe code place it in a wrapper and secure it that way. You can also use nothing but safe code and leave it completely exposed negating any safety it could provide. Furthermore it’s only Safe for now, it’s bugs and exploits just haven’t been discovered or are considered inconsequential.

open source burn out isn’t new, and they may find somebody to step up and take the reins. Beat of luck to everybody involved...

Wrong.

The Rust language was created for several reasons including zero-cost abstractions and guaranteed safety from some specific conditions. You just sound like you don’t know anything about Rust, and why and how it was created.

When you actively subvert the foundation of the language architecture by continually embedding your code inside unsafe code and lie to people that your unsafe code is actually safe then maybe it is a problem.

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Safe and unsafe mean very little, you can use plenty of unsafe code place it in a wrapper and secure it that way. You can also use nothing but safe code and leave it completely exposed negating any safety it could provide. Furthermore it’s only Safe for now, it’s bugs and exploits just haven’t been discovered or are considered inconsequential.

Sure, but the point is that the code and compiler are producing 'safe' code by default. As opposed to the machine code output of C and derivatives, the performance of which Rust is targeting. Obviously the rest of the stack needs similar attention, this is just focusing on one part.

open source burn out isn’t new, and they may find somebody to step up and take the reins. Beat of luck to everybody involved...

It's up to individuals to manage their commitments. As I've seen it, open source contributions are essentially a form of professional development, career networking, and a means of donating / 'giving back' ones skills to the community.

This person probably did the best thing for themselves by 'unplugging'.