4 ms·

This is sarcastic/satire, pretty sure? Not sure all the comments are catching that. When I have to use a 0.x-versioned package because it's a (hard or soft) de

This is sarcastic/satire, pretty sure? Not sure all the comments are catching that. When I have to use a 0.x-versioned package because it's a (hard or soft) dependency of some popular framework/platform/tool that "everyone" is using... I feel personally insulted. Like they're saying "no, we're not willing to say this is production-ready, we're not willing to say that we're not going to break backwards compatibility every month or so in a way you can't predict from the version number so can't do automated dependency updates ever, but, hey, everyone else is using it, what's your problem?" It's like the ultimate embrace of the typical HN "open source maintainers owe you nothing and you should expect nothing of them" argument. Which is true, but if all packages literally made no effort to meet user needs and we had learned to expect nothing from them, we would never be using open source....

vitro 5y ago
From the About page: > ZeroVer is satire, please do not use it.
- smsm42 5y ago
  Unfortunately, from the main page it's clear everybody does anyway.
JadeNB 5y ago
> When I have to use a 0.x-versioned package because it's a (hard or soft) dependency of some popular framework/platform/tool that "everyone" is using... I feel personally insulted. Like they're saying "no, we're not willing to say this is production-ready, we're not willing to say that we're not going to break backwards compatibility every month or so in a way you can't predict from the version number so can't do automated dependency updates ever, but, hey, everyone else is using it, what's your problem?" Wait, insulted by whom? The package developers are surely not obliged to develop their package to a standard that satisfies you, and it's hardly their fault if someone else feels that their package is useful enough to integrate it into something popular. Insulted by the popular framework that uses it … maybe, but you are not willing to forgo the use of 0.x-versioned packages even when it is a point of principle for you, so why should the developers of those frameworks forgo it when it is not a point of principle for them?
dcow 5y ago
Then don't use that software if prod if that’s how you feel. The project is literally telling you “this will change and isn't _api_ stable yet. I don’t see how that’s the project’s fault. Maybe if they’re advertising themselves as production quality but won’t commit to a 1, fine.
- hashkb 5y ago
  Do you think that's appropriate for React Native? Many of the others on their list of notable projects would probably be considered "production" quality if you asked the average dev and didn't mention the version number.
  - williamdclt 5y ago
    I would think that's appropriate for React Native. It depends where you draw the line of "production-ready", but React Native falls short on a number of criteria (stability or bug-freeness for example). It's just a damn useful tool, despite its many shortcomings.
    - jrochkind1 5y ago
      to me production-ready means ready to be used in production; If you and many people consider it useful enough to be used in production despite shortcomings, and are doing so, if the developers are aware of that and don't discourage it (does any react native documentaiton anywhere say not to use it in production?), and perhaps encourage it... it sounds production-ready to me.
      - dcow 5y ago
        So other people are the only ones who know when my project is done? And if people start using my project in production I have to immediately bump the version from 0.4 to 1? This doesn't make any sense…
        hashkb 5y ago
seph-reed 5y ago
> open source maintainers owe you nothing and you should expect nothing of them I tend not to release projects just because I think people should expect something from me if I do. On another note, I'm totally down to accept that OSS projects be malleable, but it does irk me when someone: 1. brags a ton about their project just to find it's really not that great or 2. changes things with almost no concern for who it will affect and how or 3. refuse to change things for some ideological reason when tons of people are asking for it ("that's not the right way to do it!" "you don't know my project")
themacguffinman 5y ago
You never have to use a 0.x-version package even if "everyone" is using it, this is like another ultimate HN "I'm forced to do what everyone else is doing and I hate my own choices". If it's just an indirect usage via dependency of a stable package, then it doesn't matter, the stable package itself is responsible for its stability. We use open source because through either corporate incentive or altruistic passion, some packages do put in the effort to meet user needs. That happens whether you think they owe you anything or not, which they don't. All you achieve by raising the floor of expectation is discourage non-production-ready open source contributions, which I think are still valuable regardless of how unstable they may be.

vitro 5y ago

From the About page: > ZeroVer is satire, please do not use it.

smsm42 5y ago
Unfortunately, from the main page it's clear everybody does anyway.

JadeNB 5y ago

> When I have to use a 0.x-versioned package because it's a (hard or soft) dependency of some popular framework/platform/tool that "everyone" is using... I feel personally insulted. Like they're saying "no, we're not willing to say this is production-ready, we're not willing to say that we're not going to break backwards compatibility every month or so in a way you can't predict from the version number so can't do automated dependency updates ever, but, hey, everyone else is using it, what's your problem?" Wait, insulted by whom? The package developers are surely not obliged to develop their package to a standard that satisfies you, and it's hardly their fault if someone else feels that their package is useful enough to integrate it into something popular. Insulted by the popular framework that uses it … maybe, but you are not willing to forgo the use of 0.x-versioned packages even when it is a point of principle for you, so why should the developers of those frameworks forgo it when it is not a point of principle for them?

dcow 5y ago

Then don't use that software if prod if that’s how you feel. The project is literally telling you “this will change and isn't _api_ stable yet. I don’t see how that’s the project’s fault. Maybe if they’re advertising themselves as production quality but won’t commit to a 1, fine.

hashkb 5y ago
Do you think that's appropriate for React Native? Many of the others on their list of notable projects would probably be considered "production" quality if you asked the average dev and didn't mention the version number.
- williamdclt 5y ago
  I would think that's appropriate for React Native. It depends where you draw the line of "production-ready", but React Native falls short on a number of criteria (stability or bug-freeness for example). It's just a damn useful tool, despite its many shortcomings.
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    to me production-ready means ready to be used in production; If you and many people consider it useful enough to be used in production despite shortcomings, and are doing so, if the developers are aware of that and don't discourage it (does any react native documentaiton anywhere say not to use it in production?), and perhaps encourage it... it sounds production-ready to me.
    - dcow 5y ago
      So other people are the only ones who know when my project is done? And if people start using my project in production I have to immediately bump the version from 0.4 to 1? This doesn't make any sense…
      - hashkb 5y ago

seph-reed 5y ago

> open source maintainers owe you nothing and you should expect nothing of them I tend not to release projects just because I think people should expect something from me if I do. On another note, I'm totally down to accept that OSS projects be malleable, but it does irk me when someone: 1. brags a ton about their project just to find it's really not that great or 2. changes things with almost no concern for who it will affect and how or 3. refuse to change things for some ideological reason when tons of people are asking for it ("that's not the right way to do it!" "you don't know my project")

themacguffinman 5y ago

You never have to use a 0.x-version package even if "everyone" is using it, this is like another ultimate HN "I'm forced to do what everyone else is doing and I hate my own choices". If it's just an indirect usage via dependency of a stable package, then it doesn't matter, the stable package itself is responsible for its stability. We use open source because through either corporate incentive or altruistic passion, some packages do put in the effort to meet user needs. That happens whether you think they owe you anything or not, which they don't. All you achieve by raising the floor of expectation is discourage non-production-ready open source contributions, which I think are still valuable regardless of how unstable they may be.