41–47 of 47 posts
I never hear about these companies until their shutdown announcement. Perhaps if they spent more time becoming visible and getting people's attention, things would work out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> most became a jenga-esque pile of hacks and shortcuts that few developers would want to show off in public Not just that they don't want to "show off", but even more that they don't think it will be useful. It takes a non zero amount of work to document a project such that it can be used and extended by someone who didn't write it.
I'm a proponent of publishing code that's useless, obsolete, buggy, poorly documented, etc, if the rights holders are so inclined. The reason is that I think it can still be useful as training data for, say, designing new programming languages/tools around coding patterns seen in the wild.
The only one I can think of is id software, but they spent some time to clean it up I think. Also their products are games and already very popular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> most became a jenga-esque pile of hacks and shortcuts that few developers would want to show off in public Not just that they don't want to "show off", but even more that they don't think it will be useful. It takes a non zero amount of work to document a project such that it can be used and extended by someone who didn't write it.
I'm a proponent of publishing code that's useless, obsolete, buggy, poorly documented, etc, if the rights holders are so inclined. The reason is that I think it can still be useful as training data for, say, designing new programming languages/tools around coding patterns seen in the wild.
I get your point that messy code may be useful for other purposes, but believe that the vast majority of users are looking for code to solve their problems, not "training data" or research.
That said, as you say, rights holders can do what they will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a proponent of publishing code that's useless, obsolete, buggy, poorly documented, etc, if the rights holders are so inclined. The reason is that I think it can still be useful as training data for, say, designing new programming languages/tools around coding patterns seen in the wild.
Any examples of some successful open source dumps of proprietary projects? By dump I mean they just release the code with no docs or support. The only one I can think of is id software, but they spent some time to clean it up I think. Also their products are games and already very popular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a proponent of publishing code that's useless, obsolete, buggy, poorly documented, etc, if the rights holders are so inclined. The reason is that I think it can still be useful as training data for, say, designing new programming languages/tools around coding patterns seen in the wild.
If you have a product people have paid money for, and say you're releasing it as open source because it isn't sustainable, the people looking for that code aren't typically interested "training data". I get your point that messy code may be useful for other purposes, but believe that the vast majority of users are looking for code to solve their problems, not "training data" or research. That said, as you say, rights…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> most became a jenga-esque pile of hacks and shortcuts that few developers would want to show off in public Not just that they don't want to "show off", but even more that they don't think it will be useful. It takes a non zero amount of work to document a project such that it can be used and extended by someone who didn't write it.
I'm a proponent of publishing code that's useless, obsolete, buggy, poorly documented, etc, if the rights holders are so inclined. The reason is that I think it can still be useful as training data for, say, designing new programming languages/tools around coding patterns seen in the wild.
Do you happen to have any evidence of that ever being done even once in the history of mankind?
It's a nice idea, but you should know by now the world isn't a slave to your desires.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a proponent of publishing code that's useless, obsolete, buggy, poorly documented, etc, if the rights holders are so inclined. The reason is that I think it can still be useful as training data for, say, designing new programming languages/tools around coding patterns seen in the wild.
> The reason is that I think it can still be useful as training data for, say, designing new programming languages/tools around coding patterns seen in the wild. Do you happen to have any evidence of that ever being done even once in the history of mankind? It's a nice idea, but you should know by now the world isn't a slave to your desires.
I don't have evidence of this approach actually being used to inform language or tool design, but it's not like it's an outrageous concept that nobody's thought of before. Your hostility is perplexing.