Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We now consider Moment.js to be a legacy project in maintenance mode

momentjs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 266 posts

Re: We now consider Moment.js to be a legacy project in maintenance mode

#121

Post by meigwilym »

jasonkester wrote: post #5

Good for them. Open Source seems to have an irrational fear of done . Done is good. Done should be the goal. But it’s not. Because if you’re not adding new features and pushing code changes every day, your project is abandoned , dead . To quote another thread from two minutes ago: “I’m quite sad to see the end of Moment.js” I wish the was a way to fix this attitude. So that project maintainers didn’t need to write tw…

I completely agree.

It takes a lot of guts to make this kind of announcement. When faced with younger, faster competitors, it's natural to try and fight your corner. This is rarely good for a software project.

The devs have put their hands up and called it off. They can move on to more exciting projects. The rest of us can make better decisions now that the thinking behind this decision is out in the open.

Congrats, moment.js, on a great project!

Re: We now consider Moment.js to be a legacy project in maintenance mode

#122

Post by scoopertrooper »

detaro wrote: post #117
scoopertrooper wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your projects have no dependencies? You just write everything from scratch? Your code is perfect the first time you write it? I'm utterly confused by this comment.

Why do your dependencies break your project all the time that it needs updates itself?

Changing the pinning of dependencies is still a change to a project, if only a minor change.

Re: We now consider Moment.js to be a legacy project in maintenance mode

#123

Post by scoopertrooper »

mvc wrote: post #116
scoopertrooper wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your projects have no dependencies? You just write everything from scratch? Your code is perfect the first time you write it? I'm utterly confused by this comment.

Usually when bringing in a library dependency, you don't use all features from the library. If the updates to some library relate to things you don't use, and the rest remains compatible, then why update?

Security teams generally have policies that require dependencies be up-to-date within a certain time frame. This is especially true if the dependency has a CVE somewhere within it - even if that CVE affects functionality that isn't utilised by the project.

Re: We now consider Moment.js to be a legacy project in maintenance mode

#124

Post by lcamach84 »

jasonkester wrote: post #5

Good for them. Open Source seems to have an irrational fear of done . Done is good. Done should be the goal. But it’s not. Because if you’re not adding new features and pushing code changes every day, your project is abandoned , dead . To quote another thread from two minutes ago: “I’m quite sad to see the end of Moment.js” I wish the was a way to fix this attitude. So that project maintainers didn’t need to write tw…

Not only programmers, many of us tend to look at progress as an end in itself. Progress is the process of measuring if we achieve the objectives, it can not be the objective. Many times we do not achieve 100% of the objectives and that is fine, we need to consider the law of diminishing returns.

Re: We now consider Moment.js to be a legacy project in maintenance mode

#125

Post by scoopertrooper »

DougBTX wrote: post #115
scoopertrooper wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your projects have no dependencies? You just write everything from scratch? Your code is perfect the first time you write it? I'm utterly confused by this comment.

A project can't be more stable than its dependencies and tooling, but that doesn't mean that the only way to be stable is to have no dependencies. Some programming languages make guarantees that old code will build in new versions (eg, ISO C even refuses to introduce new warnings for code that would previously build without warnings), while others will introduce backwards incompatible changes in minor releases. How m…

Library and framework maintainers will eventually stop updating previous major versions. So you manage to tread water just fine till your major version reaches EOL, then you've found yourself in the position of having to change over to a completely new API on a schedule set by the maintainer of the dependency.

Re: We now consider Moment.js to be a legacy project in maintenance mode

#127

Post by RobertKerans »

dmit wrote: post #52

Please pardon this drive-by assessment of JS calendar libraries by a casual user. moment.js: Mutable. Thank you, next. Luxon: Takes the effort to implement `Interval`, which would be `Range ` in any proper language, but somehow avoids providing separate `Date` and `Time` objects. Day.js: When you kinda like moment.js, but your bundler says it's too fat. date-fns: The finest of pure, curry-able functions over the mine…

> `DateTime` should probably be split...

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-temporal

Re: We now consider Moment.js to be a legacy project in maintenance mode

#128

Post by z3t4 »

jasonkester wrote: post #5

Good for them. Open Source seems to have an irrational fear of done . Done is good. Done should be the goal. But it’s not. Because if you’re not adding new features and pushing code changes every day, your project is abandoned , dead . To quote another thread from two minutes ago: “I’m quite sad to see the end of Moment.js” I wish the was a way to fix this attitude. So that project maintainers didn’t need to write tw…

You don't have to rewrite all software every 3 years. After 5 years without any major changes the software is stable, it has been battle tested, all issues and quirks are well known, features and designs has been discussed. It's now time for the software to pay off the development cost. And for a project like this - it's probably saves millions of man-hours every year, time that can be used for other things.

Re: We now consider Moment.js to be a legacy project in maintenance mode

#129

Post by city41 »

bartread wrote: post #67
jasonkester wrote: post #5

Good for them. Open Source seems to have an irrational fear of done . Done is good. Done should be the goal. But it’s not. Because if you’re not adding new features and pushing code changes every day, your project is abandoned , dead . To quote another thread from two minutes ago: “I’m quite sad to see the end of Moment.js” I wish the was a way to fix this attitude. So that project maintainers didn’t need to write tw…

> I wish the was a way to fix this attitude. So that project maintainers didn’t need to write two page apologies for finishing their thing. One of the problems is that GitHub is full of OSS libraries where the last commit was three years or more ago and you have no idea (without forensically analysing commits, issues, etc.) whether it's because the project is done or because the maintainer(s) lost interest, had other…

There have been some attempts to improve communication on OSS projects, such as http://unmaintained.tech/

Re: We now consider Moment.js to be a legacy project in maintenance mode

#130

Post by randomdata »

bartread wrote: post #67
jasonkester wrote: post #5

Good for them. Open Source seems to have an irrational fear of done . Done is good. Done should be the goal. But it’s not. Because if you’re not adding new features and pushing code changes every day, your project is abandoned , dead . To quote another thread from two minutes ago: “I’m quite sad to see the end of Moment.js” I wish the was a way to fix this attitude. So that project maintainers didn’t need to write tw…

> I wish the was a way to fix this attitude. So that project maintainers didn’t need to write two page apologies for finishing their thing. One of the problems is that GitHub is full of OSS libraries where the last commit was three years or more ago and you have no idea (without forensically analysing commits, issues, etc.) whether it's because the project is done or because the maintainer(s) lost interest, had other…

If an OSS library does what you need, is it not done in any meaningful sense anyway? It makes little difference if the author had hoped to add the kitchen sink, but gave up on it, if you don't need the kitchen sink.
Post reply on HN