There’s a small message contained in that unnecessarily long post - that maybe a popular library used for HTTP in Rust could use less unsafe.
There was no need for this half mocking, half condescending tone. If the author wanted an explanation for a technical decision, they could open an issue and have a conversation like an adult. Instead we’re left with their speculation that leads nowhere. They cry about the existence of some unsafe code, but don’t actually put in the effort to figure out if it can lead to a real problem like unsoundness. And somehow the title implies that they’re saying something profound about the entire rust ecosystem when they just looked at one library. It’s just innuendo, as far as I could tell.
If this work interests you, or you depend on hyper in production like many companies do, then consider sponsoring them! Or maybe you could give back to the commons by submitting PRs that fix issues you’ve found. Or even a good bug report would be appreciated.
But not this kind of article. This article helps no one and does nothing constructive. We all benefit from the work that open source maintainers put in. They have it hard enough without having to read low effort posts trashing their work. Be better.
> If the author wanted an explanation for a technical decision, they could open an issue and have a conversation like an adult.
Opening an issue comes across as a whole lot more aggressive to me. That implies that they owe you an explanation or you want them to change their code.
> They cry about the existence of some unsafe code, but don’t actually put in the effort to figure out if it can lead to a real problem like unsoundness.
unsafe might as well be unsound. The key benefit of Rust is supposed to be better memory safety than C; if everything is using unsafe, why bother?
> It contributed nothing worthwhile, but I’m happy it got you your 15 minutes on HN.
That is a very rude dismissal, followed by a bad faith implication of the author's motivations. You can do better.
I got something worthwhile out of it. I'm learning Rust and, like the author of the blog post, tend to value safety (simplicity hopefully being a contributor to that) over that last bit of performance. I was actually looking over the source of some of the libraries I'm considering using, am concerned about some things I found, didn't know about ureq, now I do, and I think it's going to fit my needs.
You broke the site guidelines badly and repeatedly in this thread, for example in your aggressive comments to the article author, and in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39139646 which was really totally unacceptable.
This is not cool.
You're a good contributor, and I appreciate that you don't do this all the time, but we've also had to warn you multiple times about this kind of thing in the past. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
There was no need for this half mocking, half condescending tone. If the author wanted an explanation for a technical decision, they could open an issue and have a conversation like an adult. Instead we’re left with their speculation that leads nowhere. They cry about the existence of some unsafe code, but don’t actually put in the effort to figure out if it can lead to a real problem like unsoundness. And somehow the title implies that they’re saying something profound about the entire rust ecosystem when they just looked at one library. It’s just innuendo, as far as I could tell.
Here’s a post by the maintainer of hyper about what they accomplished in 2023 and what they hope to accomplish in 2024 - https://seanmonstar.com/blog/2023-in-review/
If this work interests you, or you depend on hyper in production like many companies do, then consider sponsoring them! Or maybe you could give back to the commons by submitting PRs that fix issues you’ve found. Or even a good bug report would be appreciated.
But not this kind of article. This article helps no one and does nothing constructive. We all benefit from the work that open source maintainers put in. They have it hard enough without having to read low effort posts trashing their work. Be better.