That seems to be an absolute win to be honest.
Not sure how you think this is helping your case.
Maven Central people nuked the artifact that may have caused confusion, and if the owners try anything like that again, it's likely their domain will be banned from publishing.
I think Rust's `async` has been a great success for commercial "sponsors" of Rust, because it increased the complexity of the language so much that it's hardly possible anymore to contribute to it without being full-time employed to do so.
The decision for `async` handed a lot of power to Amazon et al.
The problem is the ecosystem split and the decades of man hours of churn caused in libraries and user code – that's time and effort that could have been spent on making those dependencies better.
This applies to both suggestions ("fork" and "don't use it").
> Namespace is not a solution for name squatting: namespace is just yet another identifier that can be squatted. If you are worried about squatting, the only effective solution is sandboxing, everything else is just moving the goal post.
The problems crates.io struggles with have never been an issue with Maven, regardless of how creatively you try to redefine words.
Not to mention that this boats gentlemen is on account number 3 already, so it appears that moderators on this site have already told –him more than once– that he should offer his "generous donations of free time" somewhere else if he cannot adjust his behavior.
(His older accounts show the same patterns of throwing childish tantrums and blowing up on random people.)
I think there are some lessons that can be learned from Java's virtual thread approach – note that there is a huge gap in requirements and design trade-offs, especially around embedded, when compared to Rust.
I'd just wager that the effort of getting something like that into shape is smaller than the costs of async/await.
(And no, Rust's playing with green threads once 15 years ago and failing due to quality-of-implementation issues is not an excuse to dismiss everything that came after it off the bat.)
Though it's probably not worth discussing this whole topic with Rust fans currently:
Many made async/await part of their personality and have little experience to offer besides breathlessly pointing to one of the half dozen blog articles trying to defend async/await.
It will take a few years until that language feature runs through all stages of grief and one can have an adult discussion about it.
Agreed, it's just that in Rust async/await hurts more than in e. g. JavaScript where the browser gives you enough hooks to have a "fresh start with(out) async".
> you never need to think about it, only get smaller and more beautiful files
People said the same thing last time and it took more than 10 years until decoding worked reliably. I'm simply not interested in dealing with another JPEG++.
> Perhaps open up your thinking on this?
Nah, I'm fine. I went JXL-only for anything new I'm publishing, and if people need to switch browsers to see it – so be it.
Reminds me of "You Scientists Were So Preoccupied With Whether Or Not You Could, You Didn't Stop To Think If You Should."
The arithmetic coding feature was already painful enough.
I'm simply not in need of yet another thing that makes jpeg files more complicated to deal with.
> After weighing the data, we’ve decided to stop Chrome’s
> JPEG XL experiment and remove the code associated with
> the experiment.
> We'll work to publish data in the next couple of weeks.
If that's the hill you want to die on, good luck.