I’m not being a good platform partner basically because they make it impossible for me to be one.

I’d love to avoid reverse engineering their minified code and use well documented APIs. Unfortunately, that’s not possible nor planned (as they told me on a tweet I linked on the post).

I really feel both sides of this. On the one hand, I like customizing things, and I love to see users getting involved in platforms they love. On the other, I see how responsibly providing APIs is a big long-term burden that can prevent internal innovation.

I was talking a while back with some Mozilla people about the move from their legacy API [1] to WebExtensions [2]. It was a giant pain, but their old API exposed way too much surface area in ways that were too closely tied to the original implementation. The way I heard there were significant ongoing costs in trying to maintain the old API and support popular extensions while trying to improve the underlying tech and the user experience. So I get why Slack is very reluctant to expose API surface area, especially for the UI.

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Add-ons/Leg...

[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/Web...

That is because an API should express high-level concepts, not low-level implementation.

Just as the new WebExtensions API does. And as any hypothetical Slack API should.

In deprecating functionality necessary for the extensions that made Firefox worthwhile for me, though, the reasons to prefer it over other browsers evaporated.

Have you considered asking them if you could continue running your system if you agreed to add a permanent large banner at the bottom or top stating clearly that your system may break user experience?

I realize they are saying something about privacy, so it may be their position to argue against every system that does what your's does...

That’s a good point. I’ll def ask after I take it down and let them know. Thanks!

Worth mentioning that github ended killing ZenHub, by introducing github projects, which is essentially copycat of the only useful feature ZenHub had.

GitHub projects is a much worse experience and still missing a lot of what ZenHub offers. It ranges from obvious holes like half decent filtering of the project board to niceties like viewing issues in a pop up modal rather than their own page (causing you to lose your spot in the board).

GH projects also has this arbitrary distinction between notes and issues, and notes are more or less useless yet the default when adding new items to the board.

> Worth mentioning that github ended killing ZenHub, by introducing github projects

Sherlocking is a well-known risk every tenant application must consider if they want to make a business out of it.

I would hope and expect that the ZenHub folks always understood github could just integrate the features directly, and not necessarily by buying zenhub.

As a daily user of ZenHub for over a year, I would strongly disagree that GitHub projects offers the same feature set. A Kanban view, yes.

Also a Zenhub customer. I can't but assume features would be coming stronger and faster had GitHub not implemented projects.

Remind me of f.lux on MacOS and iOS

I just reached out to joe (of this post) and I now recommend geteventbot to everyone. Small businesses run by responsive leaders like that deserve our $$$s

I read that as "Get Even Bot." Which would be a cool slack bot service as well...

That's a great idea! Hmm, I wonder what the Slack equivalent of glitter bombs are... emoji bombs?

A browser plugin that changes all applicable text to their respective emoji.

Obviously GITer bombs

Aww thanks Alex! Appreciate the note and glad you checked out Eventbot

Really happy to hear that ZenHub has an official relationship with GitHub. We use the combo in my company and think that they work remarkably well together

I used ZenHub for a long time, but being forced to use Chrome was a dealbreaker for me.