3 ms·
I think you miss a few key points: 1. Including undocumented code is a breach of trust. 2. Adding a “fun” piece of code that’s not useful (and “secret”!) adds
by chris_wot 5y ago
I think you miss a few key points:
1. Including undocumented code is a breach of trust.
2. Adding a “fun” piece of code that’s not useful (and “secret”!) adds to the burden of maintainership.
3. People will inevitably want to add to the Easter egg code. Maintainers by and large are overworked, especially for software used on the scale of curl. They have better things to do.
If you want curl with Easter eggs, fork it and see if others will use it.
- unethical_ban 5y agoMy entire premise is that you are wrong on all counts. Your ideological point is balanced by the fact that no one cares in reality. `apt-get` and other tools are used in critical systems all day long, and Krebs isn't blogging about it. Easter eggs aren't causing outages and data breaches. The fact we're discussing it all is a form of bait; the entire discussion is useless and distracting a-la Twitter culture wars, but we're addicted to the debate of minutiae. The only point I acknowledge is part two of point #3: They have better things to do, especially if, as the author says, they constantly ship buggy code.
- chris_wot 5y agoIf you feel so strongly about it, fork the codebase.
- unethical_ban 5y agoI don't feel strongly about including easter eggs in the codebase. I feel strongly that someone I suppose is very intelligent feels so strongly about it for such foolish reasons. But, it is their code, and curl is a wonderful tool. Their blog about easter eggs is laughable in how seriously it takes itself when it comes off like a joke.