[SilasX]

I said the problem was that the function calls didn't obey well-understood practices for abstraction.[1]

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

[anamexis]

Where does anyone insist that "2016 was an era before programmers were aware of the concepts of abstraction and separation of concerns"?

[SilasX]

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.

[anamexis]

I don't see anyone insisting on that, either.

[SilasX]

>>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):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18943056

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):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18943056

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):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109529

kaoD insisting it was a dark age of rust, justifying the poor abstraction:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19110116

Are we looking at the same links?

[anamexis]

Yes. I don't see a single one of those comments implying that Rust developers didn't know about proper abstraction in 2016.

The closest might be kaoD, who says:

> I'm sure they were more concerned with making the code work, making it secure, etc.

i.e. proper abstraction was not their priority at that time.

I think you are reading into these comments and finding meaning that doesn't exist.

[SilasX]

So you agree they weren’t saying anything that substantively refuted my claim that proper use of abstraction was a reasonable expectation to have of Rust devs in 2016? Then what exactly are you disagreeing with?

Edit: So, yes, I agree that Rust devs knew about a abstraction. When the replies tell me that, they’re not disagreeing with anything I’ve said. My point is that it therefore follows that it was a reasonable expectation to have of the code, that it obeys abstraction. They were giving excuses for why it might not have kept up with eg newly discovered bugs, but not why it would fail to get such basic stuff right … besides, of course, it being the dark ages of 2016.