Like I just said, the part where they insist my expectations of that library where too high because it was 2016, and my expectation was that it obeyed proper abstraction.
>>they insist my expectations of that library where too high
>I don't see anyone insisting on that, either.
Okay, I'm really lost -- if they weren't disputing that my expectations were too high, then their comments ("it was way back in 2016, man!") were not responsive at all. Is that really the pillar you want to lean on?
In any case, let's review:
Steve Klabnik dismissing my criticism because the library is abandoned (as if that's a defense of a 2016 library not having abstraction):
User cetra dismissing my points because the library "had not been updated" in a number of years (as if you can't expect a 2016 library to have to proper abstraction until it gets updates):
fpgaminer dismissing my points because "Static, perfect code is rare" (as if failure to abstract irrelevant details is okay because no one gets the code perfect with no need to ever change):
Responses defend it on the grounds that it was a long time ago, i.e. 2016.
Where's the straw man?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109093