What do people do if there is no new good functionality to implement? Change things around to minimise their own cognative dissonance and mistake that for impro

What do people do if there is no new good functionality to implement? Change things around to minimise their own cognative dissonance and mistake that for improvement? It feels better to someone to change 'compile' to 'implement' and so it happens. It ruins part of the contract between the software and existing users, but the users get it for free and they're not organised so who cares? I agree with virtually all of what you say apart from automatically updating dependencies that may or may not work. You're having to work around a problem that shouldn't exist and I think an IDE making dependency choices is a bad idea. What we really need is ONE build tool and package manager and a standard way of using them for each language. We seem to have this idea that a large choice of software tools means better software tools. Just not true. We are not completely rational 'consumers' in this economy. New software adoption is hard and has a cost associated. There are large insentive to stay with your current tool chain. Software companies knowingly or unknowingly exploit this by not having to really consider their users. Microsoft, can, within reason do ANYTHING to visual studio as there is no viable option for people or organisations change over to. I reckon a big reason people love Rust is because no one has fucked it up with lots of shitty 'tools' yet.