[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.

[infamouscow]

I think you’ve constructing a strawman, arguing for general software libraries. We're talking specifically about math libraries.

Regardless of the strawman, the person(s) that authored the code don’t owe you anything. They don’t have to step down, make an announcement, or merge your changes just because you can’t read or comprehend the license text that says very clearly in all capital letters the software is warrantied for no purpose once so ever, implied or otherwise.

If one had a patch and was eager to see it upstreamed quickly, it seems like you’re arguing the maintenance status actually doesn’t matter. Since "[t]hose interested will fork the library and carry the torch" if the patch isn’t merged expediently.

But if you're confident the interested will fork and carry the torch, why do you think you're entitled to force the author(s) giving software warrantied for no purpose should step down. That's genuinely deranged, and my insults appear to be accurate descriptions rather than ad hominem attacks since no coherent explanation has been provided as to why the four reasons given somehow supersede the authors chosen license.

[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.

[infamouscow]

The reason open source maintainers get pissy is because idiots selectively ignore entire paragraphs of the license that explicitly states the project isn't maintained and you shouldn't imply it is under any circumstances. The author is being extremely considerate. The problem is fools have no respect for author or chosen license. They rather do the opposite of what the author's license says. The only reason we're having this discussion is because there's enough fools that think they might be on to something.

The implication is the mistake, not the author for not being explicit enough.

[stanleykm]

The only one being foolish here is you with needless pedantry. Yes the legal contract says that the authors dont owe anyone anything but there is also a social contract at play here that you are apparently not understanding.