3 ms·
> It is a failure, every time you don’t ship a perfect product it’s a failure of some kind. It's impossible to ship a perfect product. So perhaps we shouldn'
by kbenson 5y ago
> It is a failure, every time you don’t ship a perfect product it’s a failure of some kind.
It's impossible to ship a perfect product. So perhaps we shouldn't use "failure" to denote not doing the impossible, and reserve it for cases where "success" is even possible.
- simonw 5y agoThis thread has made me appreciate the Star Trek Kobayashi Maru exercise in new ways. People _really_ don't like being told that they've failed.
- andrew_ 5y agoPerhaps the approach of vapid, pessimistic short-takes doesn't play well outside of Twitter, where folks aren't as impressed by blue checks and large followings, and where there isn't a benefit to jockeying for engagement. Based on your comments throughout the threads here, you appear to be overly eager to paint with an overly negative, wide brush that ignores nuance and the multitudes of situations in which your assertion doesn't come close to being true. For instance, adopting an upstream dependency change containing a breaking change, which necessitates releasing a major version in which no notion of failure, mistake, or misstep exists. I'm unsure how you gained such a large following, but your comments aren't at all inspiring or insightful - only somewhat controversial.
- ecnahc515 5y agoIt's possible to ship a product that doesn't break though. You can add new APIs, etc, instead of breaking existing ones. Anytime you do a major rev because your changing an API or removing one, you could also ship new APIs instead and keep the major version the same.