I think that there is some general misunderstanding about all the safe/unsafe deal, because some code is safe doesn't mean it can't fail, just say that there is no undefined behavior, your logic can still be wrong, that's why Rust doesn't mean you don't need testing. So some trust in the developer is still important.
Totally agree with this. One thing I really like about rust is that stuff like unit testing feels really easy to do, even where I haven't really been taught to do testing outside of the debugger and print statements at university. The fact that stuff like this exists for rust alone should be proof enough that "safe" doesn't mean "bug free" and "unsafe" doesn't automatically mean "bug riddled"
As far as the forking stuff, I totally agree as well, but I'm also not proficient enough in rust or ready in general to maintain an open source project. Most of my info with this incident is 2nd or 3rd hand at best, but from what I got, some PR's were made and rejected, which spiraled out of control. They really should have just forked it if it was that important to them.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Totally agree with this. One thing I really like about rust is that stuff like unit testing feels really easy to do, even where I haven't really been taught to do testing outside of the debugger and print statements at university. The fact that stuff like this exists for rust alone should be proof enough that "safe" doesn't mean "bug free" and "unsafe" doesn't automatically mean "bug riddled"
As far as the forking stuff, I totally agree as well, but I'm also not proficient enough in rust or ready in general to maintain an open source project. Most of my info with this incident is 2nd or 3rd hand at best, but from what I got, some PR's were made and rejected, which spiraled out of control. They really should have just forked it if it was that important to them.