4 ms·

> A profound inability to inspect websites because they are now transpiled via frameworks and emit something obtuse and only machine, not human readable IMO, t

> A profound inability to inspect websites because they are now transpiled via frameworks and emit something obtuse and only machine, not human readable IMO, the setting where open source communities are likely to grow is the right place to share code. This is also the setting where code is most likely to be understood, as understanding a codebase is very hard. Sharing code is not just a matter of dumping original source code to the public, and I think the use case around ordinary users examining source code is very, very niche. And how should compiled-language communities like Rust handle the issue of sharing code? Should they distribute the original source code with the expectation that their users shall compile on their end? Is that the right way to share code, or is that just dumping code to the public?

hattmall 5y ago
I don't think it's ordinary users examining the code. The issue is develops figuring out bugs in their own projects. You try to trace why one thing isn't working and after many hours of digging through things in developer tools you realize two or more of the massive JS libraries someone needed to import for a single function doesn't work with another in a specific use case. This is like 80% of my time and rarely does the person who decided to import the library have any in depth knowledge of it's working. Fairly basic websites today are importing hundreds of thousands of lines of unnecessary code to achieve rather basic functionality.
kristopolous 5y ago
The argument comes more from the RMS argument of distrust; people should have the liberty to inspect the mechanics of the systems they wish to use in a way that isn't willfully obstructed. Yes, there's holes in that argument (you don't get to inspect the server side code for instance), but it's a statement from principle. The web was intended to be an open platform in that "I'm free to inspect and repurpose within reason" kind of way. The radical philosophy and promise of the web and open source has been sublimated and replaced with a cynical variation, a form of elite pirate capitalism. If "we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us." and we want to go back to the virtues of the open society and dismantle the panopticon of personal data the web has become, then this is the wrong way to construct the cyber-buildings of tomorrow.

hattmall 5y ago

I don't think it's ordinary users examining the code. The issue is develops figuring out bugs in their own projects. You try to trace why one thing isn't working and after many hours of digging through things in developer tools you realize two or more of the massive JS libraries someone needed to import for a single function doesn't work with another in a specific use case. This is like 80% of my time and rarely does the person who decided to import the library have any in depth knowledge of it's working. Fairly basic websites today are importing hundreds of thousands of lines of unnecessary code to achieve rather basic functionality.

kristopolous 5y ago

The argument comes more from the RMS argument of distrust; people should have the liberty to inspect the mechanics of the systems they wish to use in a way that isn't willfully obstructed. Yes, there's holes in that argument (you don't get to inspect the server side code for instance), but it's a statement from principle. The web was intended to be an open platform in that "I'm free to inspect and repurpose within reason" kind of way. The radical philosophy and promise of the web and open source has been sublimated and replaced with a cynical variation, a form of elite pirate capitalism. If "we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us." and we want to go back to the virtues of the open society and dismantle the panopticon of personal data the web has become, then this is the wrong way to construct the cyber-buildings of tomorrow.