It's been like this for decades. Emotional salience sells software better than hard practicality to just about everyone. Then people rationalize their irrational choices then the timeline slips and the product sucks.
You can just sit and watch it play out like someone studying monkeys. It's remarkably predicable.
This wasn't anything about the posted software. It was a reply to a comment.
Formal peer-review does trump download count, nonetheless.
And I’m all for professional licensure, continuing education programs, and formal, public reviews of the software engineering behind the open source libraries that comprise global infrastructure.
Your main point wasn’t missed.
Tell me if you've ever had this experience.
You see something that looks like it's pretty popular. You try it. You find it has nothing but problems. After much research you then find out that other people don't have the level of sophisticated asks for the product and they are doing less complicated and less critical things.
It's the disconnect between the hype and the reality that really rubs me the wrong way. I've personally lost so much time on inappropriate tools.
Again I'm not here to insult anybody specifically or to speak poorly upon any specific product. I know how many people read these comments and I don't want to cast shade on anybody's hard work. I just wish there was more authenticity to the fit and purpose of things.
I know a lot of this depends on the users. I speak as somebody who has very popular projects and very not so popular projects. The popular ones are hyped (but sarcastically) and the ones that I worked very hard on to be extremely technical about do quite poorly.
To make things super current I haven't working for about a month on an article and I have been making sure it is extremely accurate and I know that that will probably hurt me because the liberties which inherently contain inaccuracy are simply more entertaining
This is a shared experience except for a select few. This carries is over to other things. Inaccurate pop science is read much more widely then the direct research material. There's something more emotionally approachable through this tactic. It just hurts productivity and it's a shame
Quoting your writing that is probably rubbing others the wrong way, as it certainly reads easily as being specific to “these” solutions, as you put it.
You might avoid triggering people’s negative emotions by sticking to your main point and avoiding the marginalizing.
This is so vague. Can you say how you're relating this to dayjs? How is its purpose inauthentic?
Thanks for being an unproductive asshole
Better luck in the 2030s I guess
You described your comment being an attack on modern development culture, as your use of euphemism, you chose the insultingly denotative word “kid” to attack the project.
Cool attitude, too?
You're being sloppy imprecise and presumptive once again. I'm noticing a pattern here. Let's see if it comes in threes.
And in case you're wondering, you're the one who set the rules of this engagement, I'm only playing by them.
We can be adults any time you want.
Nothing about that comment was belittling or hostile. It was a bit snarky, but with very good reason, and did not name its target.