[intelfx]

Echoing @steveklabnik's words, you're just hanging up on the semantics of how a particular insult has been made. This does not refute or diminish the fact of an insult.

If I actively participate in and align myself with a community that is committed to doing the $thing, and you come and say to me that "$thing is cancer", or that "the fact of doing of $thing is cancer", then it's functionally equivalent to insulting this community, and by extension to insulting me. In other words, it's clearly supposed to make _me_ feel bad (for pushing $thing, or participating in the doing of $thing), regardless of the precise wording.

It's still an unprofessional, uncooperative, and _unreasonable_ thing to do.

[veidr]

Sorry; although I'm "on your side" in the sense that I want Rust in Linux and am bummed out that it seems increasingly like it's going to be a multigenerational slog, thanks to entrenched opposition from some of the C old guard, and which might even outlive Linux's window of viability.

But this is Linux kernel development. You just can't be such snowflakes, and so quick to be outraged. My mom died young, of cancer. I don't like cancer. I know that using "cancer" as a metaphor is a very negative way to characterize anything.

But the qualifier he added in the original statement is absolutely enough to make it a fair comment.

He really, really doesn't think using multiple programming languages is a sane approach. Would you really feel better if he said, "I think a multi-language approach is a very bad idea, it will inevitably spread, and it will end up causing systemic problems far away from this initial usage, and make the kernel increasingly frail and unhealthy over time" ?

If so, ... weird?

If not, then I think you are overreacting to the blunt (but technical, if perhaps motivated from some more emotional response) that he really doesn't like this idea at all.

"Cancer" is an appropriate shorthand to refer to a practice that you think causes systemic harm that compounds or grows worse over time. (I'm afraid I myself may have used it to describe PowerPoint presentations as the basis for meetings.)

I think his comment meets the minimal etiquette bar for a serious technical discussion. I mean, it wasn't nice. But the fact that he doesn't agree with you, or like your work, isn't an insult.

> He said "you are cancer, go away".

I find this absurd mischaracterization of what he said a lot more unacceptable than what he actually said. He's bluntly stating his technical opinion (which, again, I don't agree with). But you're not paraphrasing; you're basically lying.

[intelfx]

> Would you really feel better if he said, "I think a multi-language approach is a very bad idea, it will inevitably spread, and it will end up causing systemic problems far away from this initial usage, and make the kernel increasingly frail and unhealthy over time" ?

Yes, I absolutely would. Because this statement is neutral, specific, and technical (if unfounded, so I'd feel even better if such a statement would have been supplemented with justifications), therefore it can be attacked, argued, and refuted point-by-point on a technical basis. No such thing is possible when technical concerns are replaced with emotionally loaded metaphors.

So yes, I stand by my belief that saying "$thing is a cancer" when talking to someone who is good-faith committed to doing $thing is 1) unreasonable (because it cannot be reasoned with), and 2) an insult (because it is designed to appeal to emotions rather than facts).