| > I would be very unlikely to accept a patch that simply changed the internal typings for the abstract goal of “fewer any”s. Out of curiosity, isn't a focus on that kind of things precisely the goal of Rust? I understand your point, but this was software built for Rust, which has this kind of thing (safety, the right types, etc) as a primary goal. From https://www.rust-lang.org/: > "A language empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software." and > "Why Rust? Reliability: Rust’s rich type system and ownership model guarantee memory-safety and thread-safety — and enable you to eliminate many classes of bugs at compile-time." So I can understand why someone bypassing this kind of things and then (for whatever, possibly understandable reasons) rejecting PRs to patch them because they are "boring" can be perceived as seriously mismatched with Rust's community. If someone finds this kind of thing "boring", is Rust really for them? Note: I'm not saying he has any obligation to do anything. I'm just saying his attitude may seem mismatched with the community and goals of his chosen language, which is no small problem. |
Are you kidding? Rust is a tool, not an ideology. You don't have to share in the beliefs of the tools designers to use a tool...