[asdkhadsj]

Does the new design require a link to the old design? By your opinion sure, but they don't think that do they?

Which is to say, if you own a site and decide to cut a feature, isn't that okay? It may or may not be a feature users want.. but that's another story entirely, no?

[intertextuality]

The new site has a link to the old one at the bottom. My opinion isn't factoring into it.

However, losing i18n is pretty bad. These are the old languages that were offered:

> Deutsch, English, Español, Français, Bahasa Indonesia, Italiano, 日本語, 한국어, Polski, Português, Русский, Svenska, Tiếng việt, 简体中文

However, as someone who regularly studies and works with a non-English language I can tell you i18n is pretty darn important. More important than a very pretty site that people can't read.

Per my own opinion, a FAQ is also a great idea. Especially for a new language that's trying to gain more adoption. Entirely removing it instead of reworking it into the new design before deploying mystifies me.

[steveklabnik]

Nobody was happy with losing i18n, and it's on its way back, there were just some delays.

[intertextuality]

That's not really the truth though, is it? If nobody was happy, then the new site wouldn't have been deployed. Or by "nobody was happy", did you mean "nobody really cared, because English is their primary language, thus they aren't affected at all"?

The new website is very pretty. I don't understand why the deployment could not have waited until the translations were completed. Even just translating 4-5 widely used languages would've sufficed, although still not ideal compared to the old website.

Even if people wanted to visit the old website, it's buried at the bottom of the new one, practically invisible.

[steveklabnik]

> If nobody was happy, then the new site wouldn't have been deployed.

This is an incredibly simplistic view of how projects work. On any large project, there are a number of objectives, with different priorities. And there are a number of factors, some public, some private, as to why projects end up the way that they do.

I am the person who implemented the original i18n support. It took me a year of effort to get it shipped. I do care about this. That's not incompatible with what's occurred.

> "nobody really cared, because English is their primary language, thus they aren't affected at all"?

Even if English is a primary language, that doesn't mean we aren't affected. For example, not shipping it means that I have to be embarrassed and apologize when people on the internet point out this shortcoming. Not shipping it can limit growth, as you point out. There are tons of ways.

> I don't understand why the deployment could not have waited until the translations were completed.

The original way of doing i18n was completely untenable. Doing it a better way takes time and effort. That's before the translations are actually made. That work has been ongoing since December of last year. It's getting pretty close now, with a lot of movement recently.

[intertextuality]

> but few people who are actually willing to step up and do work. That's the limiting factor on getting stuff done.

That's why waiting is also an option. Feel free to excuse it however, but removing i18n here was a pretty big mistake on the rust team's part. For what? Rust 2018? I didn't contribute to the website, but I also didn't force anyone to change it either.

> There are a lot of people willing to get extremely mad about the website online

I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed. It's rare to see actual i18n for open source projects, and it's absurd to see it get removed arbitrarily when it does exist. I believe the Rust team is capable of delivering much better quality updates, hence my writing here. I'm also sick and tired of i18n being considered an afterthought by people who do have the resources to accomplish it to at least a basic degree.

Also, just because something is open source doesn't mean "well why don't you just go do it then" is a valid argument. It isn't.

[steveklabnik]

> I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed.

Regardless of you, it's true in general. There has been a lot of heat, and it's damaged the ability to actually improve the site.

> Also, just because something is open source doesn't mean "well why don't you just go do it then" is a valid argument. It isn't.

It's not an argument. It's a description of reality.

[iopq]

Nobody liked the new site and there were a lot of complaints about the design. Why was it deployed before feature parity?

[hombre_fatal]

> That's a lie. If nobody was happy, then the new site wouldn't have been deployed.

You're losing your cool just because you have different ideas of the perfect trade-offs to make while having zero, and I mean zero, skin in the game.

It's not as impressive nor noble of a position as you seem to think it is.

[intertextuality]

Criticizing a software update is "losing my cool"? First I was "yelling" and now this...

My "different idea" is keeping the ability of non-English speakers to use the website and learn about Rust. I (and most people, I think) would not prefer a prettier site to one that has support for 10+ languages. Do you not agree?

My "position" is one of someone that heavily uses a language other than English. I very much enjoyed the old Rust site, because it meant I could actually show it to people around me, because their native language was supported. This isn't a tradeoff so much as a dealbreaker. What tradeoff was there for pushing the new website deployment too early?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize an update that made the website prettier but removed i18n for no reason. Why? Was there a fiscal incentive to immediately replace the website before any translations could be done?

So instead of making personal attacks for no reason, how about we criticize bad, unnecessary software updates together?

[kbenson]

> Criticizing a software update is "losing my cool"?

Making as assertion about someone telling a lie comes across as that, if you're given the benefit of a doubt and assumed to not be someone that calls people out as liars with little evidence unless you get carried away.

But perhaps calling people liars is a normal mode of communication for you, and you didn't lose your cool at al. That's definitely one way to interpret the comments so far, given how you equate "criticizing" to how you've presented your position so far.

I think you had good points initially. I also think that when presented with facts about this specific situation you've allowed you argument to devolve into a stubborn stand based on technicalities while belittling others.

> So instead of making personal attacks for no reason, how about we criticize bad, unnecessary software updates together?

Indeed.