On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 07:40:11 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/21/2020 12:02 AM, Araq wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 21:30:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> Languages that are used over long periods of time evolve greatly after 1.0. Fortran, Basic, C++, Java, Perl, Pascal, Python, C#, D, etc. C is a notable exception.
>> 
>> Before Ansi C came along, C lacked function prototypes and "const". I think an Ansi Standard came way later after "C version 1.0", whatever that really was.
>
> I know that well. It's a glacial change compared with what has happened in other languages. C version 1.0 would be K+R C, which was properly standardized in C89, and handful of minor improvements came with C99.

Glacial or not, K&R C was significantly different from Ansi C, so C evolved after version 1 just like the other languages, features were added. I don't see this "notable exception". Ymmv I guess.

On Wed, 2020-05-20 at 22:10 +0200, Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> 
[…]
> Personally I prefer the atmosphere of the D forums -- generally respectful and professional, but being respectful is not subordinate to being able to make technical points, passionate debate is allowed and you don't have to spend time deciphering criticism that is disguised as a compliment or wondering whether your point has been taken.

The Rust forum is generally very good, very positive, even when discussing crufty bits of Rust – of which there are many, just like any other programming language. The posts being dissected in this thread here is very unusual and hence the interjection of the Rust illuminati to stop the disrespectful negative vibes.

I think that D got a mention in the Rust forum is overall very good. It's just sad the person used disrespectful tones. It happens in all language specific milieu though, due I would suggest to tribalism, to try and protect the less confident members from a potential threat to the tribe's canon.

-- 
Russel.
===========================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk

On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 08:36:51 UTC, Araq wrote:

>> improvements came with C99.
>
> Glacial or not, K&R C was significantly different from Ansi C, so C evolved after version 1 just like the other languages, features were added. I don't see this "notable exception". Ymmv I guess.

"evolve greatly after 1.0"

C has not evolved "greatly". By comparison, Java is very nearly a different language.

On 5/21/2020 1:36 AM, Araq wrote:
> Glacial or not, K&R C was significantly different from Ansi C, so C evolved after version 1 just like the other languages, features were added. I don't see this "notable exception". Ymmv I guess.

Having implemented K+R C, C89, and C99, I know how little it actually changed.

On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 09:49:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/21/2020 1:36 AM, Araq wrote:
>> Glacial or not, K&R C was significantly different from Ansi C, so C evolved after version 1 just like the other languages, features were added. I don't see this "notable exception". Ymmv I guess.
>
> Having implemented K+R C, C89, and C99, I know how little it actually changed.

Having read GCC's source code with its PROTO() macro everywhere to compensate for the changes, I know how much it actually changed. ;-)

On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 09:09:27 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>
> The Rust forum is generally very good, very positive, even when discussing crufty bits of Rust – of which there are many, just like any other programming language. The posts being dissected in this thread here is very unusual and hence the interjection of the Rust illuminati to stop the disrespectful negative vibes.
>
> I think that D got a mention in the Rust forum is overall very good. It's just sad the person used disrespectful tones. It happens in all language specific milieu though, due I would suggest to tribalism, to try and protect the less confident members from a potential threat to the tribe's canon.

I think you missed Timons point. He talked about the reaction to the dismissive comments, not dismissive comments themselves. Here, I have never seen a moderator to drop in as quickly as he did in Rust forums. I think Timon meant that he prefers our higher tolerance of negativity. And I agree with him.

On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 21:30:16 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/20/2020 8:42 AM, bachmeier wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 14:14:05 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> 
>>> [...]
>> 
>> The best example of this is Java. It's evolved a lot over the years, in spite of being extremely heavily used and being an enterprise programming language. The Rust leadership would do well to keep in mind that evolution is not optional. Especially for a language that has a tiny fraction of the popularity of Java (in spite of the front page of Hacker News).
>
> Languages that are used over long periods of time evolve greatly after 1.0. Fortran, Basic, C++, Java, Perl, Pascal, Python, C#, D, etc. C is a notable exception.

ANSI C89 and then C99 changed C significantly. Some of the features introduced make modern C quite different from the initial K&R C.

On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 20:10:27 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Personally I prefer the atmosphere of the D forums -- generally respectful and professional, but being respectful is not subordinate to being able to make technical points, passionate debate is allowed and you don't have to spend time deciphering criticism that is disguised as a compliment or wondering whether your point has been taken.

I've never seen folks on the Rust forums shy away from detailed debate of technical points.

I do get that it's not nice to feel there are people looking over your shoulder policing your tone, but in general, all the rules come down to is "don't be a [TECHNICAL TERM]".  Which isn't _that_ hard, and is something we all ought to aim for.

At the end of the day we're in a lucky position, because our community is smaller and closer-knit, that we can get away without much moderation.  Rust's forum rules are an inevitable consequence of growth, and to a degree some of their growth may have been made easier because they pro-actively enforced standards of community behaviour from early on.

On 21.05.20 14:14, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 May 2020 at 20:10:27 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> Personally I prefer the atmosphere of the D forums -- generally respectful and professional, but being respectful is not subordinate to being able to make technical points, passionate debate is allowed and you don't have to spend time deciphering criticism that is disguised as a compliment or wondering whether your point has been taken.
> 
> I've never seen folks on the Rust forums shy away from detailed debate of technical points.
> ...

My expectation would be that technical points are ignored or deleted if someone feels they are are phrased the wrong way. I might be wrong, but currently I have no desire to post on the Rust forums as it does not appear to be welcoming to all perspectives.

> I do get that it's not nice to feel there are people looking over your shoulder policing your tone, but in general, all the rules come down to is "don't be a [TECHNICAL TERM]".  Which isn't _that_ hard, and is something we all ought to aim for.
>

There is a difference between a rule being something to strive for and being something that makes sense to enforce formally, especially based on a very vague formalization that everyone agrees with (but nobody agrees with anyone else on what it means).

Arguably, the moderator is being a [TECHNICAL TERM]. I think it's ridiculous to reprimand someone for calling a change log entry a "PR stunt", especially if you are not even interested enough in the subject matter to have an opinion on whether it's true or not and therefore add nothing of substance to the topic at hand. I doubt that this opinion would be welcome on the Rust forums.

> At the end of the day we're in a lucky position, because our community is smaller and closer-knit, that we can get away without much moderation.

I.e., we respect each other more, therefore we don't get offended so easily.

> Rust's forum rules are an inevitable consequence of growth, and to a degree some of their growth may have been made easier because they pro-actively enforced standards of community behaviour from early on.

The enforcement is necessarily superficial, inconsistent, biased and will tend to be overzealous. Anyway, I don't claim my opinion on this is universal or shared by the majority. It's possible that this is a contributor to Rust's popularity. Maybe upvoting generic moderation comments feels nice to some people. (It's the comment with the largest number of hearts in the thread even though it is essentially without merit and completely off-topic.)

On Thursday, 21 May 2020 at 15:58:58 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:

> Maybe upvoting generic moderation comments feels nice to some people. (It's the comment with the largest number of hearts in the thread even though it is essentially without merit and completely off-topic.)

Well it's easy to agree with. Without having to look for sources of information.
Or having to go through the trouble of validating them.