3 ms·
It's almost as if none of the replies read Drew's comment. Drew is talking about developing an editor for a closed source system and dealing with interfaces tha
by noobermin 6y ago
It's almost as if none of the replies read Drew's comment. Drew is talking about developing an editor for a closed source system and dealing with interfaces that break and then are hard to change, unlike open source systems that receive patches. It has nothing to do with "tweak[ing] the platform." Fixing a bug (which upstream would do, not you) is not tweaking, a bug is unintended behavior.
- fsloth 6y agoYes, but I am not paid to fix the platform. From my employers point of view it is irrelevant if I could fix the platform since they most certainly don't want to pay for it. This is not evil. It's just how some parts of the industry work.
- dandellion 6y agoFrom your employer point of view you might be able to save a lot of time and money by submitting a patch for the bug upstream, instead of having to write your own text layout manager from scratch to work around an issue, which if you're unlucky won't even add any additional value to the client by itself other than enabling that feature.
- imwillofficial 6y agoThe operative word is “might” As experienced devs with love of open source, they made this choice after thinking about it. They just have different value weights for their goals and those aren’t the same as other folks. Not a biggie
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Gibbon1 6y ago> unlike open source systems that receive patches Which you have to create and convince the maintainers to accept. Some maintainers are gracious and others not so much. Impression I get with Microsoft 'developer doesn't want to work on it' isn't a show stopper like it is with open source.