3 ms·

How can I explain something I clearly disagree with?

by lugg 7y ago

detaro 7y ago
If you disagree with semver being flawed, why did you ask: > Isn't it well known to be a flawed practice yet? If you agree with that statement, why can't you explain why it is flawed?
- lugg 7y ago
  That wasn't the question. The question was why do I think it's both flawed and universally accepted. Because it is, and it isn't? These are basic facts. Have you read the semver spec? Is your libraries new version compatible with my library? How can you know?
  - jsjohnst 7y ago
    > That wasn’t the question Yes, it was. While the grammar I used should be pretty clear on what I meant already, here’s an alternative version: Why would using semantic versioning (something near universally accepted as a best practice) be flawed in your eyes? Or more simply: Why would using semantic versioning be flawed in your eyes? > These are basic facts. Actually, they aren’t. It’s your opinion (not a fact) and you still haven’t provided a single drawback (flaw) to following semantic versioning despite repeated requests. > Have you read the semver spec? Yes, I have. More than once in fact. Have you? > Is your libraries new version compatible with my library? Assuming both authors follow semantic versioning faithfully and the previous minor/patch release worked, then yes, it very likely will be compatible. > How can you know? If both sides have a well defined API and the authors follow semantic versioning, you should have a good indication that way. That said, as the saying goes, “trust but verify”.
  - fluffything 7y ago
    > Because it is, and it isn't? > > These are basic facts. Those are not facts, those are claims. Facts are supported with data, and you haven't given any. The only fact you have actually provided is that you can't tell facts from claims apart, and that makes it very unlikely that you will be able to provide any actual facts that support your claims.
pohl 7y ago
This is where the discipline of asking yourself “why” becomes useful.

How can I explain something I clearly disagree with?

by lugg 7y ago

How can I explain something I clearly disagree with?

If you disagree with semver being flawed, why did you ask: > Isn't it well known to be a flawed practice yet? If you agree with that statement, why can't you explain why it is flawed?

lugg 7y ago
That wasn't the question. The question was why do I think it's both flawed and universally accepted. Because it is, and it isn't? These are basic facts. Have you read the semver spec? Is your libraries new version compatible with my library? How can you know?
- jsjohnst 7y ago
  > That wasn’t the question Yes, it was. While the grammar I used should be pretty clear on what I meant already, here’s an alternative version: Why would using semantic versioning (something near universally accepted as a best practice) be flawed in your eyes? Or more simply: Why would using semantic versioning be flawed in your eyes? > These are basic facts. Actually, they aren’t. It’s your opinion (not a fact) and you still haven’t provided a single drawback (flaw) to following semantic versioning despite repeated requests. > Have you read the semver spec? Yes, I have. More than once in fact. Have you? > Is your libraries new version compatible with my library? Assuming both authors follow semantic versioning faithfully and the previous minor/patch release worked, then yes, it very likely will be compatible. > How can you know? If both sides have a well defined API and the authors follow semantic versioning, you should have a good indication that way. That said, as the saying goes, “trust but verify”.
- fluffything 7y ago
  > Because it is, and it isn't? > > These are basic facts. Those are not facts, those are claims. Facts are supported with data, and you haven't given any. The only fact you have actually provided is that you can't tell facts from claims apart, and that makes it very unlikely that you will be able to provide any actual facts that support your claims.

pohl 7y ago

This is where the discipline of asking yourself “why” becomes useful.