Re:Why asynchronous Rust doesn't work
by HoolaBoola on Wednesday March 10, 2021 @12:51PM
(#26413988)
> Please, calm down.
By the way, that will almost certainly be taken in a bad way. It's never a good idea to start a comment with something like "chill" or "calm down", as it feels incredibly dismissive.
> I do appreciate your work on Rust, but
There's a saying that anything before a "but" is meaningless.
This is not meant to critique the rest of the comment, just point out a couple parts that don't help in defusing the tense situation.
Thank you for the advice. Yes, I should've been more careful in my previous comment.
I have noticed this comment only after engaging with him in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26410565 in which he wrote about me:
> You do not know what you are talking about.
> You are confused.
So my reaction was a bit too harsh partially due to that.
Re:Why asynchronous Rust doesn't work
by stjohnswarts on Wednesday March 10, 2021 @10:17AM
(#26412081)
So why did you not present your own solutions to the issues that you criticized or better yet fix it with an RFC rather than declaring a working system as basically a failure (per your title). I think you wouldn't have 10% of the saltiness if you didn't have such an aggressive title to your article.
I have tried to raise those issues in the stabilization issue (I know, quite late in the game), but it simply got shut down by the linked comment with a clear message that further discussion be it in an issue on in a new RFC will be pointless.
Also please note that the article is not mine.
Re:Why asynchronous Rust doesn't work
by Supermancho on Wednesday March 10, 2021 @10:33AM
(#26412280)
You know the F-35 is a disaster of a government project from looking at it, why not submit a better design? That isn't helpful. You might be interested in the discussion from here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26407770
In this thread [1] we have a more technicall discussion about those models, I suggest to continue that thread.
>I assure you, the problems it present are not related to Rust's polling model AT ALL.
I do not agree about all problems, but my OP was indeed worded somewhat poorly, as I've admitted here [2].
>Pin is not a hack any more than Box is. It is the only way to fit the desired ownership expression into the language that already exists
I can agree that it was the easiest solution, but I strongly disagree about the only one. And frankly it's quite disheartening to hear from a tech leader such absolutistic statements.
>It is simply FUD - frankly, a lie - to say that it will block "noalias,
Where did I say "will"? I think you will agree that it at the very least will it will cause a delay. Also the issue shows that Pin was not proprely thought out, especially in the light of other safety issues it has caused. And as uou can see by other comments, I am not the only one who thinks so.
>the content your consuming is usually from one of these kinds of people:
Please, satisfy my curiosity. To which category do I belong in your opinion?
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26410359
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26407565