> However, I can't resist but asking: if those things do have their uses then why didn't the hobbyists support them through patches to GCC / clang and LLVM?
They didn't decide to create a whole new language and make everything dependent on it.
At some point, when you reach a critical mass, you have to spend more on seemlessly "irrelevant" tasks, like supporting other architecture. Don't shift the problem away by making ridiculing it, own your shortcomings.
Okay, that's a more fair and balanced point of view.
However, let's not forget one of the main points of original article: nobody promised those people that their dependency's dependencies will never change. The crypto authors made a decision to go with Rust. If dependents want to continue using it, they have to adapt or stop using it.
As I've said above: backwards compatibility is an admirable goal but it doesn't override everything.
> As I've said above: backwards compatibility is an admirable goal but it doesn't override everything.
You'll never get a job at either Microsoft, or in any system jobs where backward compatibility is paramount (say, the Linux kernel) for millions, if not billions. Just going the Apple "fuck you" way is arrogant at best, disillusioned at worst, especially when you're an irrelevant language.
Sorry that your work has made you so frustrated. It sounds stressful. IMO you should consider exiting your current company or area. Judging by your comments, you are pretty jaded (and set in your ways).
I am not interested in discussing extremes as mentioned in two separate sub-threads now but you do sound like you need a break. Good luck, man.
They didn't decide to create a whole new language and make everything dependent on it.
At some point, when you reach a critical mass, you have to spend more on seemlessly "irrelevant" tasks, like supporting other architecture. Don't shift the problem away by making ridiculing it, own your shortcomings.