1. 28
  1.  

  2. 6

    Release notes for 1.0 as that appears to be what makes this notable today more than any other day :).

    1. 1

      I can’t find this in the actix/actix-web docs: why did they move away from using actix itself? If I want to create an actor-based application that doesn’t necessarily do I/O, should I still consider actix?

      1. 0

        Really confused why they would name it something so close to the notorious active-x? I highly, highly recommend a name change. I get that it uses Actix as its actor framework, super cool, how about “Bogart” or some other historical film actor. “Shakespeare” if you want to draw from history. That name will damn Actix-web.

        Edit: talked to the creator. https://github.com/actix/actix-web/issues/898

        I’ll never understand. Hopefully it survives in spite of the name.

        1. 10

          It’s been around for a while and this is the first time I’ve ever heard someone connect it to active-x. I don’t think it’s an issue.

          1. 1

            My reaction was in part because when I read the headline I thought it was activex for rust and I was like ??????.

          2. 4

            I’m old enough to remember ActiveX and didn’t make that association. It’s probably fine.

            1. 3

              I’m not sure what active-x is