If that's the hill you want to die on, good luck.

We have hundreds of languages made to please the corporate overlords.

Can't we just have one language that's actually nice to use?

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.

The decision for `async` handed a lot of power to Amazon et al.

This applies to both suggestions ("fork" and "don't use it").

The problems crates.io struggles with have never been an issue with Maven, regardless of how creatively you try to redefine words.

That's a fact. Deal with it.

(His older accounts show the same patterns of throwing childish tantrums and blowing up on random people.)

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.

The harmful decisions Rust made highlight its ingrained culture of doubling down on previous mistakes at all costs.

There seems to be no reevaluation of the cost/benefit ratio once the "preferred approach" turns out to be non-viable.

"We want to have feature X, consequences be damned" is rarely a winning move in language design.

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.

Did that ever happen?

That's the prerequisite for me to engage any further with you.

I. e. it's stupid and embarrassing to watch people use it.