• Michael@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    trying to jam their code everywhere using methods that rival the cia simple field sabotage manual.

    I am aware of the manual, but I fail to see how adding to a codebase is “sabotage” if it’s all generally seen as fine by the project lead - it’s far from a hostile takeover.

    Would a CIA saboteur even want memory safety as a rule? Just speculating, but I’d say that’s unlikely.

    Edit: I changed the order of the sentences, as it was not intentionally ordered, and slightly clarified my second thought.

    • Gayhitler@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      I don’t think the ends are those of the cia, and I didn’t say that the means were either, only that they were similar to those in a famous mid century guide for those trying to halt or hijack organizations.

      I don’t think the rust devs are a cia opp, before you ask. I think some rust devs and even proponents of rust who only cheer from the sidelines are sometimes behaving in ways that raise red flags. I think it’s natural and laudable that the existing devs and maintainers are alarmed by that same behavior. It’s their job.

      I also think Linus position on rust has been stretched to the point of breaking and I personally find it hard to take positions seriously that distill the complex process of integrating new languages into a very old very large codebase with many full time developers into “Linus said I could”.