I don't know about clearly. Intent over text is hard to parse, but my reading of it was that they just didn't get the point of using exceptions the way STS does, and if it truly is the best.
Sure, suggesting a solution immediately after that is somewhat dismissive, but if someone starts off by acknowledging that they are ignorant on the subject and want context, then tbh, it's kind of our job to look past that dismissiveness as unintentional and just address the point. And let's be frank, we have all done the same our first few times on the mailing list. On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 4:53 PM Robert Engels <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe you need to reread the other thread. Eric’s tone was clearly > dismissive of the work of Java engineers, and attempting to blanket change > something at the 11th hour is also highly dismissive. > > Then responding with "Respectfully, I think we’re talking past each other > a bit.” because I happened to state I felt Rust’s error handling was > horrible - nothing towards Eric whatsoever. So then labelling my comments > as “talking past him” to what degree of respectfulness is that? > > You can use measured words and still be highly disrespectful - that was my > point. It’s the intent not the words. > > On Dec 19, 2025, at 3:40 PM, Robert Engels <[email protected]> wrote: > > You’re right - putting “respectfully” in front of something doesn’t make > it respectful. Thanks for recognizing this. > > On Dec 19, 2025, at 3:37 PM, Brian Goetz <[email protected]> wrote: > > There's no call for this, and putting "respectfully" on front of it > doesn't make it respectful. Eric has been unfailingly constructive, > polite, and measured in this thread. (In fact, all but one of the > participants on this thread have been.) > > On 12/19/2025 1:59 PM, Robert Engels wrote: > > Respectfully, can you give it a rest. > > > > > >
