3 ms·
Pedantic notice: an utter dearth of counterproductive features would seem to be a good thing rather than a problem.
by vanderreeah 8y ago
Pedantic notice: an utter dearth of counterproductive features would seem to be a good thing rather than a problem.
- crankylinuxuser 8y agoAs another systems engineer, I'd much rather have clearly delineated features and how to interconnect them, rather than a cornucopia of disparate and badly documented "features". I'm thinking of the class of "Does:X, Y, Z" but Z requires unstated dependency of A and C, and C requires you to have a specific database organization type that was asked at the initialization of the system. And there would be no hint that you had to choose the DB type, and how that would have ramifications 10 steps down the line. Going back, what I'd rather have is more in line with the Unix philosophy. Do something and do it well. Let me connect somethings to other somethings. But Gitlab is a cathedral, and disorganized at that.
- kevinherron 8y agoI think you're missing the point as well; "dearth" is a lack of. A lack of counter-productive features is a good thing.
- Izkata 8y agoI think you've misunderstood who is responding to who. A "dearth of somewhat counterproductive features" is being described as a bad thing in the OP, using an incorrect/nonexistent definition of "dearth" as "there are too many somewhat counterproductive features".
- IncRnd 8y agoAs they say - less is more.
- code_duck 8y agoI was confused by that, too. I have a problem with the word ‘dearth’ in that I can often not remember whether it means an abundance or scarcity. So I looked it up, and found that it means scarcity. Perhaps GP makes the same mistake I do and misused dearth to mean abundance?
- adrianratnapala 8y agoYes, it means scarcity and the GP used it to mean abundance. My mnemonic is that "dearth" looks like "death".
- Terr_ 8y agoI suspect they meant more like "profusion."