I'm glad to hear it, but for me that still leaves Scala one down on every other language. Once bitten, twice shy.

This is a poor line of reasoning - pretty much every community acquires an ass at some point and when it's not something they've dealt with previously it often takes them a while to figure out how to react.

The question is how they do react once they've figured it out, and Scala's come along in leaps and bounds in that regard.

If anything, you should be more wary of groups that haven't yet dealt with that problem, because they've had no chance to develop the relevant antibodies yet.

I mean, I get it, if you have a bad experience with X, it's going to colour your perceptions going forwards, being human be like that - but similarly to throwing away a dice because you rolled a nat 1 with it at an inopportune moment, it's far from the most rational response available to you.

A community isn't "a dice". It has state. Indeed, dice are precisely designed to be uncorrelated roll to roll. You're claiming it's still weighted, just in a different direction now.

Did they really clean things up? Or is it just talk about how things have changed? The way to find out for sure is for me to spend time in the community. It could be better, or the abuse could just be better hidden. And honestly, given the revolution in recent years in codes of conduct and DEI, I suspect my odds are better with newer communities, as there are now plenty of "antibodies" out there.

But all this tickled my memory. Wasn't their an FP advocate who was also an abusive jackass and far-right kook just a few years back? Yes, yes there was. And gosh, what community was he prominent in? Scala. So if I had waited 5 years and given Scala another chance, I would still have landed in a community where there was significant support for abusive behavior.

Maybe he was booted in 2019 or so? Hard to tell from the web. From his tweets, it look like he has crept back in. Is that because he and Scala are worlds better? or is it just the usual missing stair routine that I observed more than a decade ago? I don't know, can't tell, and won't be finding out, because there are plenty of other technologies for me to pick up.

> given the revolution in recent years in codes of conduct and DEI, I suspect my odds are better with newer communities, as there are now plenty of "antibodies" out there.

A lot of that stuff can easily just enable a different set of broken stairs though.

Crafting a code of conduct such that it makes it easy to deal with both reactionary -and- wokescold flavoured bullies is something of an art form, and I've seen a number of communities manage to completely fail at one of the two albeit usually in a very well-meaning way.

Antibodies are great up until they give you an auto-immune syndrome, basically.

(I definitely saw the far right kook get defenestrated, though the community may still be sufficiently quokka to've let him sneak back in through a different door, I'm mostly an observer here - and mostly only looking at all because as a veteran code of conduct advocate I tend to find the various failure modes worth examining)

Sure, and I never said otherwise. I'm just saying my personal heuristic is "once bitten twice shy". If you would like to apply a different one in your life, godspeed. But move along with your "poor line of reasoning" accusations. I've just demonstrated how it was not only a reasonable heuristic, it was also proven correct for the very community I was talking about.

An N=1 example of an instance where a line of reasoning produced an accurate answers proves that it -can- produce the right answer, but does not, in fact, tell you anything beyond that about how likely it is to produce the right answer in any given case.

So "I've just demonstrated how it was [...] a reasonable heuristic" is simply unsupported here. If it's working for you, great, maybe you're encountering a different subset of communities than I am, maybe you've been lucky, maybe I'm simply dead wrong, but getting Elm-maintainer-style passive aggressive over somebody pointing out logical flaws in the underlying claim as to why the heuristic is 'proven correct' is a rather unfortunate way to respond to what was written as constructive criticism of said logic.

I see. You'll only listen to me when I've been abused in a statistically significant number of communities. Definitely somebody I'm going to listen to on the topic of where the good communities are.

Not much has changed, no worries.

Hah, thanks! A nice counterpoint to the person who said otherwise. And especially to the person who seems to think that I must have some sort of brain damage to be concerned.

One way Scala experts deal with people disagreeing with them is to contact those peoples' employers/universities, maybe you should revise your profile accordingly.

Come on, this is FUD. You're talking about one or two guys who got into an enormous personal fight years back and were condemned by everyone else.

Who condemned Martin? Sources please.