3 ms·

> Attacking something so well established because of personal reasons feels so wrong from my PoV. That is a mischaracterization of the post. The author is maki

by hjek 6y ago

> Attacking something so well established because of personal reasons feels so wrong from my PoV. That is a mischaracterization of the post. The author is making a clear technical point about how environmental variables are global mutable state. Labeling that as an "attack because of personal reasons" is just plain misleading. > That thing wouldn't be a de-facto standard if it was too bad, right? How much of the post did you read? Your point is almost exactly the same as the 3rd listed in the post: > It's the same old trifecta of why things are bad and broken: > 1. Envvars are easy to add > 2. There are existing processes that only work via envvars > 3. "This is the way we have always done it so it must be correct!"

bayindirh 6y ago
> That is a mischaracterization of the post. I don't think so. First of all, as I detailed in [0] and [1], my central point of disagreement is the tone and attitude of the post, not the usage of environment variables itself. There are a lot of scenarios where environment variables makes a lot of sense, and scenarios where using them is absolute madness as we discussed with q3k in [1]. > How much of the post did you read? All of it. BTW, please remember asking this question is directly against guidelines [2] (sec: In comments, guideline 8). > Your point is almost exactly the same as the 3rd listed in the post: 3. "This is the way we have always done it so it must be correct!" As I said in my other comments, I do not directly support the exact opposite of the author's stance. My disagreement is in the tone and rigidity of viewpoint. To quote myself: I'm not calling this is good with the persistence of the original author. I tell that it's one of the realities that we have, and instead of burning it with torches, why not build better conventions around it with better attitude and language? Please see [0] and [1] for further clarification. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26660409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26660409 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26660553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26660553 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by hjek 6y ago

bayindirh 6y ago

> That is a mischaracterization of the post. I don't think so. First of all, as I detailed in [0] and [1], my central point of disagreement is the tone and attitude of the post, not the usage of environment variables itself. There are a lot of scenarios where environment variables makes a lot of sense, and scenarios where using them is absolute madness as we discussed with q3k in [1]. > How much of the post did you read? All of it. BTW, please remember asking this question is directly against guidelines [2] (sec: In comments, guideline 8). > Your point is almost exactly the same as the 3rd listed in the post: 3. "This is the way we have always done it so it must be correct!" As I said in my other comments, I do not directly support the exact opposite of the author's stance. My disagreement is in the tone and rigidity of viewpoint. To quote myself: I'm not calling this is good with the persistence of the original author. I tell that it's one of the realities that we have, and instead of burning it with torches, why not build better conventions around it with better attitude and language? Please see [0] and [1] for further clarification. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26660409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26660409 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26660553 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26660553 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html