4 ms·
I’m not using “trivial” as a measure of ease of back-end implementation, but rather of how it actually changes user experience and productivity. There is no lim
by jessriedel 4y ago
I’m not using “trivial” as a measure of ease of back-end implementation, but rather of how it actually changes user experience and productivity. There is no limit to how hard it can become to implement trivial changes behind the scenes; it would be silly to ignore or downplay the ossification of desktop OS capability just because software developers continue to expend more and more effort to make smaller and smaller improvements.
My reading of your comment is that you aren’t actually interested in thinking about non-trivial changes here. “Didn’t you know people have tried eliminating folder systems before? It’s hard and hasn’t succeeded yet” is obvious and does not seriously engage with the possibility. (“Didn’t you know people have been attempting to make stylus input work for decades without success?”) Likewise, the fact that web apps can be disguised as native apps is not the same thing as eliminating the distinction at the user level, and I don’t think you would have conflated these if you were really interested in it.
So I don’t think it will be productive to continue this conversation.
- dagmx 4y agoAgain, that's why I'm delineating between scale and complexity. Trivial implies complexity, but you seem to keep going back to scale of the change. Saying something is trivial, by definition, implies its a simple change. Nothing mentioned so far is simple. None of your suggestions were modest. I understand you're using the word according to how you think of it, but I'm trying to point out that you're incorrect, and that many of the things you say are modest are not so. You're actively down playing the amount of work and it either feels disingenuous to make your point, or divorced from the reality of implementation.