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

It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

drmaciver.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 364 posts

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#191

Post by sgillen »

growse wrote: post #187
sgillen wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just that if you put lot of effort into isolating a bug for someone for free, it can feels bad to have it rejected without explanation. Also if it's a real issue that you won't fix you should at least leave the issue open so other people know. IMO you can definitely be extremely grateful for someone's contribution and also think they are sort of rude, not incompatible views/feeling.

> It's just that if you put lot of effort into isolating a bug for someone for free, it can feels bad to have it rejected without explanation. Where does that bad feeling come from? Does it come from the fact that you feel like you're owed a response? Do you get the same feeling when you email strangers and they don't respond? > Also if it's a real issue that you won't fix you should at least leave the issue open so…

> Where does that bad feeling come from? Does it come from the fact that you feel like you're owed a response? Do you get the same feeling when you email strangers and they don't respond?

It's just the time spent for me, I mean if for some reason I put like an hour of my time composing an email to a stranger and they didn't respond I would unhappy. It would be my fault but I would still be unhappy.

I agree that no one is entitled to have everyone act nice to them. I just think it's nice to tell someone why you're closing their issue.

> If you need the bug fixing and the maintainer isn't doing it fast enough, just fork it. This is the point of open source.

100%

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#192

Post by rikroots »

From the article:

> There is no obligation to free labour. Every hour you put in working on your project for free is a gift to the world. If the world comes back to you and says "You are a bad person for not supporting this thing I need you to support" then fuck them. If they want that they should pay you for it, or do it themselves.

I've had my Javascript canvas library "side project" on GitHub for seven years. In those 7 years I've had exactly ONE issue opened - which then got closed when the person who raised it worked out for themselves how to solve the problem they'd encountered.

Instead, people email me their questions - maybe a dozen of those over the years. They're usually really simple questions on how to do this or that using the library. I ask people to open an issue on GitHub for their question (because other people might find whatever answer I come up with useful) ... then I never hear from them again. I like to assume they solved the issue for themselves and don't need my help; others may choose to interpret the facts differently.

So I'd actually welcome people raising issues. It shows me that my "side project" is more than vanity, that people find it useful. And it would help improve the library because I can't think of every use-case or edge-case myself.

... But whatever happens, I'll still continue working on the library: some compulsions are beyond cure!

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#193

Post by tenaciousDaniel »

rikroots wrote: post #192

From the article: > There is no obligation to free labour. Every hour you put in working on your project for free is a gift to the world. If the world comes back to you and says "You are a bad person for not supporting this thing I need you to support" then fuck them. If they want that they should pay you for it, or do it themselves. I've had my Javascript canvas library "side project" on GitHub for seven years. In t…

what's the side project?

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#194

Post by dgellow »

harisund wrote: post #122
dgellow wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you agree that there is no obligation, then assert a set of social obligations that should be respected. Do you see the contradiction here?

You are simply being pedantic. He said there's no "absolute" obligation, but there are some by virtue of us living in a society.

I’m not saying this to be pedantic. And I’m not denying that there is some social expectations when living in society.

If you say that there is no obligations, but also that you should follow some social expectations, then you’re contradicting yourself. It’s just a nicer way to say that people should behave according to what you consider to be acceptable.

Btw, which society rules do you mean? Because you have a lot of differences in different places regarding politeness and other social obligations.

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#195

Post by [deleted] »

vxNsr wrote: post #106
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While `left-pad` certainly wasn't the most optimized implementation, it wasn't a "click-grabbing" project of the sort saurik was positing. It solved the problem the name suggested it would solve. The fallout around it really didn't have anything to do with "resume-driven development" EDIT: Not sure why this was downvoted, maybe people forgot that padStart and friends appeared in ES2015, long after left-pad was create…

off-topic: I still don't understand the use case that left-pad solved. I'm not into js at all but why do you need a dependency to add space to text? I'm asking honestly, I just don't get what the use for this was.

[deleted]

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#196

Post by z3t4 »

vxNsr wrote: post #106
TAForObvReasons wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While `left-pad` certainly wasn't the most optimized implementation, it wasn't a "click-grabbing" project of the sort saurik was positing. It solved the problem the name suggested it would solve. The fallout around it really didn't have anything to do with "resume-driven development" EDIT: Not sure why this was downvoted, maybe people forgot that padStart and friends appeared in ES2015, long after left-pad was create…

off-topic: I still don't understand the use case that left-pad solved. I'm not into js at all but why do you need a dependency to add space to text? I'm asking honestly, I just don't get what the use for this was.

The module system in Node.js (not ES6 modules) makes it super easy to use modules because a module is bound to a variable and you can require the module from anywhere and it will be scoped to the function. It's like if all code in the global JavaScript collective is available in global scope.

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#197

Post by stevenwliao »

wolco wrote: post #96
saurik wrote: post #8

I agree: it is OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty. However, it also can simultaneously be not OK for you to publish it in a package directory with a generic name and a description talking about how awesome it is as a trap for other people to run into, and that is really the core problem: it isn't that you didn't spend an unreasonable amount of time and money to make a good product that no one paid for…

"sure: it is totally their fault for deploying something without carefully reading your code to figure out that it was a bit shitty beforehand" Yes you must read and understand everything or have trust in the publisher. Relying on the package name is going to get you in trouble. Sounds like a great exploit opportunity.

Who has read through all the code of their direct dependencies, let alone transitive ones?

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#198

Post by samblr »

Github should seriously think of making amount of time spent by developers behind a repository. Even a rough heuristic will do.

This can include not just the time spent on code, documentation, tests, issues.

I guess, it would help other developers empathize better with individual developers who do it for no monetary gains.

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#199

Post by jessaustin »

anticensor wrote: post #159
bigiain wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a license for that: http://matt.might.net/articles/crapl/ I know free software debaters and open source license philosophers love to hate on this one, but the fundamental core concept of "more importantly, it should absolve authors of shame, embarrassment and ridicule for ugly code" in the context of them choosing to release code or not is a great idea I reckon. (But I agree wholeheartedly with the thrust of…

> 1. By reading this sentence, You have agreed to the terms and conditions of this License. The craziest click-to-accept clause I have ever read.

Thanks a lot guy! By pasting that awful sentence into this thread, you've forced all of us reading here to agree to the license!

Re: It’s OK for your open source library to be a bit shitty (2015)

#200

Post by rikroots »

tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #193
rikroots wrote: post #192

From the article: > There is no obligation to free labour. Every hour you put in working on your project for free is a gift to the world. If the world comes back to you and says "You are a bad person for not supporting this thing I need you to support" then fuck them. If they want that they should pay you for it, or do it themselves. I've had my Javascript canvas library "side project" on GitHub for seven years. In t…

what's the side project?

https://github.com/KaliedaRik/Scrawl-canvas
Post reply on HN