3 ms·

To me it is not bike-shedding, but being rightfully indignant with decisions being made not by merit but from a position of "authority", completely ignoring the

by stiff 15y ago

To me it is not bike-shedding, but being rightfully indignant with decisions being made not by merit but from a position of "authority", completely ignoring the opinion of the majority of people presenting pretty logical arguments in favour of the change. I do not understand how you can defend returning a method call result completely meaningless from the caller point of view by saying that returning an actually meaningful one would suddenly make everyone think that the xyz? methods have to return true/false everywhere. This is the kind of reaction you get from people when you refuse to admit you were wrong after it is already clear to everyone you were.

stock_toaster 15y ago
Maybe they are just trying to optimize for pedantry.
Cushman 15y ago
That's the only objective read of this. There were a couple of good reasons to make the change, a couple of bad reasons to, and no reasons not to. The discussion fixated on the bad reasons early on, it became a matter of principle on both sides, and thus the change was not made despite the good reasons. It's not bikeshedding, but there ought to be a name for that.
- aeturnum 15y ago
  My read of the article is that "bikeshedding" generally covers discussions in which the energy expended vastly outweighs the gravity of the topic under discussion. There can be a correct answer to, "what color should we paint the bike shed?" (or, at least, many incorrect answers). The fact that one side might be correct (or more correct) than the other does not justify the effort. The point of the article, as I read it, was that you should consider the energy needed to influence a decision v.s. the impact of that decision.
  - Cushman 15y ago
    I think the point we're making is that most of the people arguing over that PR didn't have a strong opinion about the feature itself, but were irritated by the weirdly philosophical reason for rejecting it. (I don't care what color you paint your bike shed, but if your local government says you can't paint it green because that's surrendering to the plants, I'm likely to have an opinion about that.) Obviously at some point (and the earlier the better) you still need to to throw up your hands and walk away, but I'd say pig wrestling is the better metaphor here.

by stiff 15y ago

stock_toaster 15y ago

Maybe they are just trying to optimize for pedantry.

Cushman 15y ago

That's the only objective read of this. There were a couple of good reasons to make the change, a couple of bad reasons to, and no reasons not to. The discussion fixated on the bad reasons early on, it became a matter of principle on both sides, and thus the change was not made despite the good reasons. It's not bikeshedding, but there ought to be a name for that.

aeturnum 15y ago
My read of the article is that "bikeshedding" generally covers discussions in which the energy expended vastly outweighs the gravity of the topic under discussion. There can be a correct answer to, "what color should we paint the bike shed?" (or, at least, many incorrect answers). The fact that one side might be correct (or more correct) than the other does not justify the effort. The point of the article, as I read it, was that you should consider the energy needed to influence a decision v.s. the impact of that decision.
- Cushman 15y ago
  I think the point we're making is that most of the people arguing over that PR didn't have a strong opinion about the feature itself, but were irritated by the weirdly philosophical reason for rejecting it. (I don't care what color you paint your bike shed, but if your local government says you can't paint it green because that's surrendering to the plants, I'm likely to have an opinion about that.) Obviously at some point (and the earlier the better) you still need to to throw up your hands and walk away, but I'd say pig wrestling is the better metaphor here.