3 ms·
That’s not the point of the article, the point is that if a developer gets to the point of having to break things, it should think on how to mitigate the work i
by xondono 6y ago
That’s not the point of the article, the point is that if a developer gets to the point of having to break things, it should think on how to mitigate the work is forcing upon those who use its tools.
It’s about being conscious about others time and the impact your work has on theirs.
They might be a good reason for changing “compile” to “implementation”, but it costs nearly nothing for the dev to add a specific rule that if “compile” is in the code, the compiler should show a link or point to the docs or explain how to solve it.
On the other side it’s painfully costly for anyone using that tooling to understand what’s happening, why the change, how to solve it. The end result is that a lot of inexperienced users will find a fix that works for them (like bulk replace of one for the other), and the end result tends to be a worse ecosystem for all.
- jsnell 6y agoI don't think that's true. This is what the author wants. Or rather, demands: > Why doesn’t Android Studio / Gradle / Whatever just go “Mate – you’ve used compile here – that won’t work. Want me to automatically update the syntax? It’ll probably be fine.” But the machine can't make the decision, since it doesn't know the intent. The informed human in charge of the project does. What if there's automation, and tool ends up making the wrong decision? I bet that the author would be complaining about that instead. Reading the Twitter threads that the author links to are quite illuminating, and it's surprising to me he feels it's showing him in a good light. It's an amazing display of both entitlement and intentional ignorance.