4 ms·
Sure, but extensibility often comes with complexity. If I'm making something non-extensible it's to keep things simple or to prevent a bunch of bugs around peop
by everforward 4y ago
Sure, but extensibility often comes with complexity. If I'm making something non-extensible it's to keep things simple or to prevent a bunch of bugs around people trying to extend something with complicated state.
They always have the nuclear option of forking and making those fields no longer internal. They'll have to take on the maintenance overhead that I shirked, but that should be fine if they need it that badly.
- kriz9 4y agoI agree. Most of my frustration comes from unescessary abstractions and not code that I can't extend.
- chii 4y ago> They always have the nuclear option of forking and making those fields no longer internal. while that is always possible, it is not always reasonable. If you take firefox as the example, the removal of the XUL extension api is one such. And while there's many a forks to keep the old XUL api, none of them really caught on, and so support for them such as maintaining security patches etc fails.