[james412]

I know it's common and perhaps even fashionable, but FWIW language like "We take an opinionated stance" utterly puts me off caring about this package

It's a piece of software, it has a design that is either fit for purpose or not. When ego becomes entangled in that design process, it's a strong indicator of the kind of experience one might have trying to get fixes or enhancements merged, or even the kind of attitude you'd find when attempting to report a bug.

[ajkjk]

That's not what the word 'opinionated' means here. It's not any one person's opinion; it's that the project overall takes a stance on an issue rather than leaving everything open for everyone else to figure out. It provides clarity and direction compared to the more difficult situation where every library is completely general. No ego involved at all.

[james412]

Perhaps I misunderstand the text in the README. Who is "we" in this case? Is the software writing its own README?

[ajkjk]

'We' refers to the authors and their organization as a collective. That's still the meaning of the word 'opinionated' in this context.

[jspaetzel]

More context is helpful here. "We take an opinionated stance that every module should be a crate, as opposed to generating Rust files 1:1 with proto files."