4 ms·
Do you think you're like Apple: not allowing people to fix their phones, laptops ...?
by dxxvi 2y ago
Do you think you're like Apple: not allowing people to fix their phones, laptops ...?
- Pet_Ant 2y agoI don’t want the community hijacking my library by fossilizing some implementation detail. If you want to fork it, own it and do it, but don’t force that on me by using something you weren’t meant to and then bitch and moan when I break your code by changing some detail.
- zdragnar 2y agoYou can make that argument either way. People will always complain about the decisions you make and the ones you don't. The semantics of encapsulation are sufficient. Anyone who breaks them knows it's on them, and if they don't, they certainly should have. It's not worth sweating all the maybes and what-ifs.
- vips7L 2y ago> Anyone who breaks them knows it's on them, and if they don't, they certainly should have. I agree, the issue arises when library developers make this decision and application developers have to deal with the fall out of that. Application developers need to know when things like this happen.
- zdragnar 2y agoSo use an older version of the library, or stop using the library, or work around it. Libraries with such bad behavior are going to be infrequently used, or abandoned quickly regardless.
- vips7L 2y agoI don't see how this is relevant. This purely puts control into the hands of application developers. It lets them know exactly what correctness, portability, and integrity guarantees their application has. The application developer STILL can "fix their phone", but they have to enable it at the command line. It pevents library developers from making decisions for application developers without them knowing.