4 ms·

We (objectively) haven't received (many) bug reports (on the Reason section, on the web, where Reason is). See my comment right above. We do receive a ton on th

We (objectively) haven't received (many) bug reports (on the Reason section, on the web, where Reason is). See my comment right above. We do receive a ton on the rest, plus for the server side.

dmitriid 9y ago
See, you don’t even understand what I’m saying. The fact that your code doesn’t break in production doesn’t mean it’s behavior is correct. - messenger.com is a subpar experience compared to mobile - there are multiple behavior issues: — it fails to reconnect when connection is lost — it randomly fails to unfurl urls which display correctly on mobile - it may unfurl a url in one chat and not unfurl the same url in another chat - it may lose connection and not even notify about it (mobile chat updates, web chat doesn’t, reloading helps) - try searching. good luck discovering where “load previous” is hidden - it may get stuck in a scroll position displaying an old message at the bottom of the chat Shall I continue? I use messenger.com exclusively throughout the day. Your pride in “not receiving bug reports” for the Reason code doesn’t amuse me.
- lilactown 9y ago
  Bug reports are a way to measure how well the behavior is approaching correct. You seem to not be satisfied with messenger.com's experience; valid, it seems. It's a large app with bugs. But your point is obscured by the fact that you seem to be poo-pooing one of the few ways that the development team can get feedback on what users actually experience on a day-to-day basis. chenglou is doing a bit of massaging of the numbers; the claim that there's "only been 10 bugs" isn't quite true. Their code base is 50% ReasonML and 50% JS, and in the ReasonML portion, they've only had 10 bugs - a signification reduction! But they haven't commented on how many bugs are reported in the JS side; we can probably infer that there is many more (since the implication is that there were many more bugs in the old JS code they replaced). You seem to be frustrated that the messenger.com experience is not up to par and have latched on to the idea that, since the team says they're seeing improvements since introducing ReasonML, that they think they're perfect now. I guarantee you that's not the case. It sounds like you have some very valid complaints, though, and as a daily user I bet they'd love to hear your feedback. So maybe fill out a bug report with what you just wrote? :)

We (objectively) haven't received (many) bug reports (on the Reason section, on the web, where Reason is). See my comment right above. We do receive a ton on the rest, plus for the server side.

dmitriid 9y ago

See, you don’t even understand what I’m saying. The fact that your code doesn’t break in production doesn’t mean it’s behavior is correct. - messenger.com is a subpar experience compared to mobile - there are multiple behavior issues: — it fails to reconnect when connection is lost — it randomly fails to unfurl urls which display correctly on mobile - it may unfurl a url in one chat and not unfurl the same url in another chat - it may lose connection and not even notify about it (mobile chat updates, web chat doesn’t, reloading helps) - try searching. good luck discovering where “load previous” is hidden - it may get stuck in a scroll position displaying an old message at the bottom of the chat Shall I continue? I use messenger.com exclusively throughout the day. Your pride in “not receiving bug reports” for the Reason code doesn’t amuse me.

lilactown 9y ago
Bug reports are a way to measure how well the behavior is approaching correct. You seem to not be satisfied with messenger.com's experience; valid, it seems. It's a large app with bugs. But your point is obscured by the fact that you seem to be poo-pooing one of the few ways that the development team can get feedback on what users actually experience on a day-to-day basis. chenglou is doing a bit of massaging of the numbers; the claim that there's "only been 10 bugs" isn't quite true. Their code base is 50% ReasonML and 50% JS, and in the ReasonML portion, they've only had 10 bugs - a signification reduction! But they haven't commented on how many bugs are reported in the JS side; we can probably infer that there is many more (since the implication is that there were many more bugs in the old JS code they replaced). You seem to be frustrated that the messenger.com experience is not up to par and have latched on to the idea that, since the team says they're seeing improvements since introducing ReasonML, that they think they're perfect now. I guarantee you that's not the case. It sounds like you have some very valid complaints, though, and as a daily user I bet they'd love to hear your feedback. So maybe fill out a bug report with what you just wrote? :)