[infamouscow]

The rise of frontend developers over the last 5 years learned everything must be new.

That a math library of all things could be complete is several orders of thinking beyond their ability. I'm sure the gut reaction is to downvote this for the embarrassing criticism, but in all seriousness, this is the right answer.

[sevagh]

I realize asking for a new 4.0 release is fair (and the GitLab issue does have a highly upvoted request for a release).

But you can't just call things "dead" for no reason, it's in poor taste. It's feature-complete, not dead!

[stanleykm]

Sure code can be “feature complete” but the reality is the rest of the world changes, so there will be more and more friction for your users over time. For example someone in the issue mentions they need to use mainline to use eigen with cuda now.

[infamouscow]

Mathematics is a priori. It's beyond the world changing. You might be surprised to learn we still use Euclid's geometry despite it being thousands of years old.

What you're actually saying is you expect open source maintainers to add arbitrary functionality for free.

[_xivi]

> Mathematics is a priori

Sure, but the discussion here is about a software library not the math concepts

[infamouscow]

Software programs are equivalent to mathematical proofs. [1]

Short of a bug in the implementation, there has yet to be a valid explanation for why mathematics libraries need to be continuously maintained. If I published an NPM library called left-add, which adds the left parameter to the right parameter (read: addition) how long, exactly, should I expect to maintain this for others?

The only explanation so far is that scumbags expect open source library maintainers to slave away indefinitely. The further we steer into the weeds of ignorant explanations, the more I'm inclined to believe this really is the underlying rationale.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...

[_xivi]

There are many reasons why a library require continuous maintainance even when it's "feature-complete", off the top of my head:

1. Bug fixes

2. Security issues

3. Optimization

4. Compatibility/Adapt to landscape changes

People pointing flaws in a library aren't "scumbags that expect open source library maintainers to slave away indefinitely"

No one is forcing the maintainer to "slave away", they can step down any time and say I'm not up for this role anymore. Those interested will fork the library and carry the torch.

No need to be so defensive and insult others just for giving feedback.

[stanleykm]

I don’t think I’m saying that at all. There are plenty of little libraries out there written in C89 in 1994 that still work perfectly well today. But they don’t claim to use the latest compiler or hardware features to make the compiled binary fast, nor do they come with expectations about how easy or hard it is to integrate. The code simply exists and has not been touched in 30 years. Use at your own peril.

If you have a math library that is relying on hardware and compilers to make it fast you should acknowledge that the software and hardware ecosystem in which you exist is constantly changing even if the math is not.

[infamouscow]

> THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

This is a pretty bold and loud acknowledgement.

What more could you really ask for when even lawyers think this is sufficient.

[stanleykm]

> What more could you really ask for

Some signal that the project is being maintained? If it’s not that’s fine but don’t go radio silent and get pissy when people ask if a project is dead…

This is not a legal or moral issue it’s just being considerate for others as well. You, the maintainer, made the choice to maintain this project in the public and foster a userbase. This is not a one-way relationship. People spend their time making patches and integrating your software. You are under no obligation to maintain it of course but dont be a dick.

[klaussilveira]

What? You mean I don't need to refactor and break API every 6 months?