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

231–240 of 364 posts

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

#231

Post by ww520 »

ljm wrote: post #180
mattlondon wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People often act very entitled about open source I've found. You'll often get angry irate emails/issues raised demanding you help them or add a new feature or whatever. Some people are just clueless and need help, others are just dicks. It is often not worth the hassle in my opinion, but then everyone's circumstances and motivations are different and I am glad that a lot of people do think it is worth it.

If anyone is in any doubt about this, I would like to point them towards this github issue: https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid-sim/issues/165

WOW. This is over the top toxic.

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

#232

Post by dunkelheit »

asadjb wrote: post #219
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…

I disagree. If I've built a small library that does something useful for my set of needs , it's not crap software. It works perfectly well for my needs. If someone then goes ahead and uses my library, without understanding what needs it satisfies and what it does not, how is that on me? I release it to the world with the understanding that someone else might have the same requirements that I had when I built it. Why…

Most of the time yes, but it is not so simple. There is a common resource that can be described as "attention of people who are looking for a library for X" and every time you publish a library for X you use up a bit of this resource. Most of the time this effect is small and more than offset by the value of your code, but it is not zero and overusing this common resource is a dick move.

As an extreme example consider content farms like eHow. After all, they simply publish some low-quality how-to guides, no one is obliged to read them. Why then are they so universally reviled?

> If someone then goes ahead and uses my library, without understanding what needs it satisfies and what it does not, how is that on me?

Being upfront and clear about the needs it satisfies is good documentation practice and plain common courtesy. If you did it and they still misunderstood, then yes, it is on them.

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

#233

Post by dirtydroog »

maest wrote: post #186
ljm wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone is in any doubt about this, I would like to point them towards this github issue: https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid-sim/issues/165

Some of the commenters in that issue have a very regressive and myopic stance. Raising such a public ruckus will heavily disincentivise scientists from publishing their code in the future. Decisions will still be made, but in the dark. There's a certain amount of self-stroking going on there with people feeling better by putting down code produced by non-professional programmers. A much better response would be: 1. S…

Well, there was this situation a few years ago https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/17/4234136/excel-calculation...

While the tone of the covid model scrutiny leaves a lot to be desired it is understandable seeing as how the results are affecting the entire world. The situation is unprecedented.

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

#234

Post by gitgud »

ExtremisAndy wrote: post #205

I have never contributed to open source because I have always been so impressed with the source code I’ve seen in these projects. It intimidates me! I’m a self-taught programmer, and while I’ve certainly written thousands of lines of useful code (useful to me, in any case), I know it isn’t “correct” (as in, idiomatic or ideally what you should write). If I could ever get to the place where I trusted my own work, I’d…

> but I’m just too embarrassed at the low quality/ugliness of my code.

If you contribute something to the Open Source community that works and is useful, then you might find some people who really appreciate the effort you went to.

...regardless of code quality...

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

#235

Post by wpietri »

cellularmitosis wrote: post #175
stickfigure wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. On the other hand, sometimes people put a lot of time and effort into isolating an issue and writing up the best description they can manage. Closing the issue is a one-click FU to the people who are doing their best to help. Some users are overly entitled, but some maintainers are self-absorbed douchebags. I've seen both sides.

I will never understand this point of view. The author has already given you possibly hundreds of hours of free labor simply by publishing the project. But now, because they won’t give you a few more, they’re a douchebag? Even if they close all issues with no comment, they have given you a such _massive_ head start vs having to write the entire project yourself from scratch. How can you be anything but grateful?

If they have it open for issues and then handle the responses they have invited poorly, then yes, that's rude. A douchebag doesn't magically stop being a douchebag because they've open-sourced some code.

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

#236

Post by tych0 »

j88439h84 wrote: post #54
tych0 wrote: post #44

I've used and been the maintainer of a "shitty" open source window manager off and on for the last 10 years. I love the project. People at my last few companies joke about it. But it's so fun. Who cares if it's shitty. Ride bikes and write code.

Been using it for years, I really appreciate your work!

Hey cool, thanks :)

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

#237

Post by tych0 »

dmpayton wrote: post #128
tych0 wrote: post #44

I've used and been the maintainer of a "shitty" open source window manager off and on for the last 10 years. I love the project. People at my last few companies joke about it. But it's so fun. Who cares if it's shitty. Ride bikes and write code.

Some of my favorite memories of open source involvement have been contributing to that "shitty" project. Thanks for helping to keep it going!

Yeah! Thank you too. The excellent web pages and docs would not be there without your efforts.

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

#238

Post by kirill5pol »

ljm wrote: post #180
mattlondon wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People often act very entitled about open source I've found. You'll often get angry irate emails/issues raised demanding you help them or add a new feature or whatever. Some people are just clueless and need help, others are just dicks. It is often not worth the hassle in my opinion, but then everyone's circumstances and motivations are different and I am glad that a lot of people do think it is worth it.

If anyone is in any doubt about this, I would like to point them towards this github issue: https://github.com/mrc-ide/covid-sim/issues/165

That was painful to read. :(

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

#239

Post by onemoresoop »

asadjb wrote: post #219
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…

I disagree. If I've built a small library that does something useful for my set of needs , it's not crap software. It works perfectly well for my needs. If someone then goes ahead and uses my library, without understanding what needs it satisfies and what it does not, how is that on me? I release it to the world with the understanding that someone else might have the same requirements that I had when I built it. Why…

If one explains well what it is then they can’t be expected to support the parts of what that project is not.

I second the comment above about having a honest description to waste other people’s time.

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

#240

Post by grayclhn »

andrewstuart wrote: post #16

But when potential employers come looking at your work they'll say "hey this code is shitty! It's not a work of art with 100% code coverage tests and perfect in every way. We can't possibly give you a job. Every line of code in our corporate repo is Mona Lisa quality, we can't let rubbishy developers like you in."

Some employers may do that. But, from the github profiles I’ve looked at, I’ve found that writing an ok README file and any coherent inline documentation or comments would put you in the top 5% of job applicants. Even if the code itself is crap.
Post reply on HN