> The document didn't mention a lawsuit and I was just responding to the above comment with only the context of the postmortem and pointing out that this particular article didn't claim anything illegal happened.
You are correct that they did not make any claims, but the article did insinuate illegal behavior on the part of André and Samuel by selectively juxtaposing facts to imply wrongdoing without ever directly stating or saying that their behavior was illegal. For example:
1. André's first commit on RV is placed on the same bullet point as the Ruby Central-funded maintainer offsite, which implies Ruby Central's travel money subsidized a competing project's creation.
2. The `rubygems-github-backup` access token covering "all repos, including private repos" is introduced in the same timeline section as RV development, without any allegation it was used for RV.
3. The "Incident Lessons" section recommends adding an "Outside Business Activities" declaration policy, which only reads as a "lesson" if André's undisclosed side project is being framed as the problem in need of remediation.
4. The report states André "had intimate knowledge of the foundation roadmap" and "did not tell anyone in Ruby Central about this work until it launched". This frames nondisclosure of a lawful side project as a transgression. However, Ruby Central passed on this work, and even if they didn't, André has no obligation to tell Ruby Central about his work!
5. André's proposal to have his consultancy analyze RubyGems.org download logs is presented alongside an OSS Committee member raising PII and "reputational risk" concerns, casting a perfectly sensible rejected business proposal as something suspect.
By my count, Ruby Central makes roughly 10 insinuations throughout the report, but not once do they actually claim any of these constitute a transgression.
> I think that topic is extremely complicated (e.g. I am not so sure moonlighting for a competitor while an employee is necessarily protected in California...)
California is actually quite clear on this! Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600 voids non-compete agreements, and California courts have consistently read it broadly enough that working on a competing project during employment is protected. The line is whether you used your employer's proprietary information or resources to do it, not whether you competed. The report does not allege that Samuel or André used Ruby Central's proprietary information, and given how thoroughly they documented everything else, I'd expect them to have said so if they had evidence of it. Ruby Central is insinuating that working on RV in the first place is a problem, not that they crossed any legal or contractual line.
This is a disappointing look for Ruby Central. I have to get back to work, but their retroactive framing that Andre and Samuel's work on RV justified Ruby Central's subsequent actions is contradicted by their own admissions.
By their own admission, André is a contractor to Ruby Central. Contractors, especially under California law, have no contractual obligation of confidentiality to the other party unless there's a pre-existing agreement in place. They later admit in this "incident report" that they didn't have any legal agreements with André in place, so there's no basis for claiming André couldn't work on rv.
Samuel was an employee, not a contractor, but [California Bus. & Prof. Code § 16600](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....) voids non-compete agreements—so even as an employee, he had every right to work on a competing project. There's no indication that he used Ruby Central's proprietary information to do so, and the report doesn't allege that. I have little doubt that if Samuel or André used proprietary information to develop rv, they would have already presented evidence of that.
Independent of the legalese, a "uv but for ruby" is a blindingly obvious thing to do, and Ruby Central doesn't get to lick the cookie and get upset when an independent contractor—Ruby Central's own characterization—does a thing they didn't fund.
My sourcing on this is that I run a 10-person business with employees in California. I'm not a lawyer, but I looked over enough of this paperwork that I feel confident opining on an internet forum.
One of the rust-analyzer co-maintainers (Chayim Friedman) already rewrote it, but we can’t integrate it yet, as about 40 assists (the little lightbulbs?) still rely on mutation. If you want something Rowan-like, I think syntree and Biome’s rowan fork are good options to look into.
(Hi, I’m on the rust-analyzer team, but I’ve been less active for reasons that are clear in my bio.)
> Language servers are powerful because they can hook into the language’s runtime and compiler toolchain to get semantically correct answers to user queries. For example, suppose you have two versions of a pop function, one imported from a stack library, and another from a heap library. If you use a tool like the dumb-jump package in Emacs and you use it to jump to the definition for a call to pop, it might get confused as to where to go because it’s not sure what module is in scope at the point. A language server, on the other hand, should have access to this information and would not get confused.
You are correct that a language server will generally provide correct navigation/autocomplete,
but a language server doesn’t necessarily need to hook into an existing compiler: a language server might be a latency-sensitive re-implementation of an existing compiler toolchain (rust-analyzer is the one I’m most familiar with, but the recent crop of new language servers tend to take this direction if the language’s compiler isn’t query-oriented).
> It is possible to use the language server for syntax highlighting. I am not aware of any particularly strong reasons why one would want to (or not want to) do this.
Since I spend a lot of time writing Rust, I’ll use Rust as an example: you can highlight a binding if it’s mutable or style an enum/struct differently. It’s one of those small things that makes a big impact once you get used to it: editors without semantic syntax highlighting (as it is called in the LSP specification) feel like they’re naked to me.
We (the rust-analyzer team) have been aware of the slowness in Rowan for a while, but other things always took priority. Beyond allocation, Rowan is structured internally as a doubly-linked list to support mutating trees, but:
1. Mutation isn’t really worth it; the API isn’t user-friendly.
2. In most cases, it’s straight up faster to create a new parse tree and replace the existing one. Cache effects of a linked list vs. an arena!
In fairness, I don’t think we predicted just how large L1/L2 caches would get over the coming years.