News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The People's Code by inimino on Friday November 04, 2016 @04:43AM (#12871132)
That's not exactly the same as choosing to use something that is hosted on someone else's server, which they could then subsequently modify now that you are using it in a very high-profile project.

Of course, judging candidates' by the code quality of their campaign websites is a rather obscure and somewhat useless pastime.

Re:The People's Code by GrinningFool on Friday November 04, 2016 @08:56AM (#12872163)
True (on both counts). And yet it's common practice to include libs, fonts, and other bits from third party sites that the dev has no control over
Re:The People's Code by TeMPOraL on Friday November 04, 2016 @10:53AM (#12873013)
It's a stupid and lazy practice. It's common because most web developers aren't exactly highly trained specialists who know what they're doing.
Re:The People's Code by Aaron1011 on Friday November 04, 2016 @03:03PM (#12875021)
I agree that it's still bad practice. My main objection was to the statement "Since GitHub is for open-source projects, it also meant that any user could submit a request to modify the code and impact Trump’s website". If don't trust the maintainers' judgement in merging PRs, hosting it yourself isn't a solution (short of reviewing the entire project yourself).
Re:The People's Code by infinite8s on Saturday November 05, 2016 @02:32PM (#12881155)
I think the concern here is that the maintainer could subsequently merge a malicious PR knowing who was using the library from GitHub. That wouldn't be an issue if that group was hosting a version themselves (before the maintainer might find out who was using it).