zlacker

I think, from observation, that the Rust project has worse burnout problems than most other similarly-sized open source projects.

I'm not sure whether it's more to do with the way the project is organised, the state of the codebase, or the sort of person that's attracted to working on Rust in the first place.

>>mjw100+(OP)
i have some thoughts on it here: https://tech.lgbt/@jyn/111771280764615511. i'm planning to make this the subject of my next blog post.

>>mjw100+(OP)
> the sort of person that's attracted to working on Rust in the first place

What's that even supposed to hint at?

>>mjw100+(OP)
Maybe it's because Rust is new and well designed. People who have adopted it probably care about this and want to maintain it and that's hard. Maybe it's my perfectionism, my desire to build and live in an ivory tower, but I feel this as a Rust user, a fear that they might break some perceived perfection that I care about. I've commented before that "at least C++ developers are free from the burden of using a perfect language", which was me projecting this feeling.

>>pdimit+D6
I was thinking something along the lines of people who tend to set unusually high standards for themselves.

Rust has something of a self-image of always being best-of-breed in everything it attempts, so I could believe that it might be particularly attractive to those sorts.

Other possibilities might be that Rust developers skew younger than average (I don't know whether that's true), or that its six-week release cycle attracts people who think that a year is a long time.

>>mjw100+j8
rust definitely skews younger than average. i don't have statistics on hand, but almost all people i know working on the project are younger than 35, and a surprising number are 17-25

>>mjw100+j8
> people who tend to set unusually high standards for themselves

I would agree, at least I am like that when using Rust (though I don't contribute).

And it's true that this is a shortcut to burnout.

> or that its six-week release cycle attracts people who think that a year is a long time

I don't speak for the Rust project but to me this always sounded like a measure to avoid stagnation. Having six week slices helps remind people that this is not only a labor of love; many people out there are counting on you to get your stuff right.

Obviously Rust isn't governed like a commercial project (and thank the gods for that) and obviously many things still take years to complete but for me at least the six weeks release cycle would serve as a periodical poking a la "Hey, is your stuff progressing even a little?".

Don't know though, could be just my interpretation.

>>Button+r7
Rust is far from "perfect" in my opinion as any other language. It tackles couple of particular and important problems but since it can not completely solve it for general case it bends people to think in a certain "perfect" way. Not sure it is ok when one has to jump hoops on what should be perfectly valid and logical code just because compiler can't figure out that it is actually safe.

Also as a generic tool I think it ought to support multiple paradigms and it does not. Just because they (language designers) believe that doing thing their way is superior to what others might find more appropriate does not make them right.

Personally - I would use Rust if clients insists which so far has never been the case, otherwise I would take a subset of C++ any time over.

>>pdimit+D9
From the outside, the Rust project seems to be governed like a government project. Is that markedly better?

Linux shows us at least one way to run a successful long term project. What is their governance model?

>>darthr+qp
Wish I had an answer.

>>pdimit+D6
Furries - lots and lots of furries.[0] /endjoke

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/vyelva/why_are_there_...