3 ms·

This has a really terrible take where the author compares javascript obfuscation to source code complexity, suggesting that source code that’s as hard to read a

This has a really terrible take where the author compares javascript obfuscation to source code complexity, suggesting that source code that’s as hard to read as obfuscated JS is unfree. This is a pretty flimsy point - so much that I doubt this article was written in good faith. Firstly obfuscated javascript is intentionally modified by a program. Secondly, does this mean that any source code that’s too complicated for the author is suddenly no longer FOSS? Code is often very complex for good and bad reasons but very rarely is it done just to prevent comprehension. If it’s not being done intentionally then I’m sure that as long as you’re skilled and taking the time, you can understand the code.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pessimizer 4y ago
> If it’s not being done intentionally then I’m sure that as long as you’re skilled and taking the time, you can understand the code. This is true whether or not it has been done intentionally. Which is why it's not a "terrible take" but a completely trivial and obvious comparison. It can also take an enormous amount of skill and time to understand some code, and far less skill and time to understand other code, and this range is only partially related to what the code is trying to accomplish. You can even make an argument that intentionally obfuscated code can be Free (I would make that argument.) The OP is making a different argument that whatever you think of them, both intentionally obfuscated code and unintentionally obfuscated code are obfuscated code, which is not a big reach. I'd add to that argument and say, that even though whether software is Free or not is a binary (if it can be relicensed under the GPL, it's free), it's pretty obvious that some software is "Freer" than other software. As a metaphor, having legs and not having legs is pretty close to binary, but if what we're actually concerned about is walking, the quality of the legs you have irt walking can range from indistinguishable from a person with no legs to marathon runner. Thinking publicly about the value of particular standards is neither gatekeeping or entitlement.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pessimizer 4y ago

> If it’s not being done intentionally then I’m sure that as long as you’re skilled and taking the time, you can understand the code. This is true whether or not it has been done intentionally. Which is why it's not a "terrible take" but a completely trivial and obvious comparison. It can also take an enormous amount of skill and time to understand some code, and far less skill and time to understand other code, and this range is only partially related to what the code is trying to accomplish. You can even make an argument that intentionally obfuscated code can be Free (I would make that argument.) The OP is making a different argument that whatever you think of them, both intentionally obfuscated code and unintentionally obfuscated code are obfuscated code, which is not a big reach. I'd add to that argument and say, that even though whether software is Free or not is a binary (if it can be relicensed under the GPL, it's free), it's pretty obvious that some software is "Freer" than other software. As a metaphor, having legs and not having legs is pretty close to binary, but if what we're actually concerned about is walking, the quality of the legs you have irt walking can range from indistinguishable from a person with no legs to marathon runner. Thinking publicly about the value of particular standards is neither gatekeeping or entitlement.