3 ms·

I've never seen a project highlight a negative use case in detail. This is a first.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
It's not quite the same but SQLite has a page where they clearly present its limitations and how to identify the situations where you should choose something else. https://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html https://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html
- recursivedoubts 2y ago
  We have a similar essay up on when to use htmx/hypermedia: https://htmx.org/essays/when-to-use-hypermedia/ https://htmx.org/essays/when-to-use-hypermedia/ I think it's a good idea for any software project to have something like this so that people know when it's a good fit and when it isn't.
  - abrookewood 2y ago
    Have to agree - it's certainly refreshing to see someone acknowledging that their technology isn't going to work best in every case.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    Ah cool! I've used htmx and like it but I hadn't seen this before.
dannyobrien 2y ago
Me neither. In the 2000s, Tor did something similar (a "what Tor can't do" page) and prominent linked to it on the front page, which definitely improved the project's reputation with a coterie of infosec professionals. It might not have helped with wider adoption though. People would send me the link saying "Look at all of these bad things about Tor", and it would be links to Tor explanatory pages. It was around that time that I realised that when trying to give people an intuition for what software many Internet professionals trust, the list of "green flags" I identified was, in fact, the exact opposite of what the majority might guess as being good signs. "Large list of attractive sounding features" vs "Lists problems with the tool as prominently as benefits" ; "Sold and marketed by a large well-known company" vs "Developed by a small, volunteer team" ; "Free to download" vs "Costs money"; "Modern, professionally-designed website" vs "Looks like it was built in 1997", etc, etc.
cxr 2y ago
Which is exactly what shouldn't happen. Every serious proposal/RFC needs to have an honest stab at what the competition looks like and why it won't work there. > I often see people believe in their solution and think theirs are better than the others. They defend their cases without having an exact reason. These situations often create long and meaningless discussions that go nowhere. From <https://candost.blog/how-to-stop-endless-discussions/ https://candost.blog/how-to-stop-endless-discussions/>. (Comments: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25622149 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25622149>)

It's not quite the same but SQLite has a page where they clearly present its limitations and how to identify the situations where you should choose something else. https://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html https://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html

recursivedoubts 2y ago
We have a similar essay up on when to use htmx/hypermedia: https://htmx.org/essays/when-to-use-hypermedia/ https://htmx.org/essays/when-to-use-hypermedia/ I think it's a good idea for any software project to have something like this so that people know when it's a good fit and when it isn't.
- abrookewood 2y ago
  Have to agree - it's certainly refreshing to see someone acknowledging that their technology isn't going to work best in every case.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Ah cool! I've used htmx and like it but I hadn't seen this before.

dannyobrien 2y ago

Me neither. In the 2000s, Tor did something similar (a "what Tor can't do" page) and prominent linked to it on the front page, which definitely improved the project's reputation with a coterie of infosec professionals. It might not have helped with wider adoption though. People would send me the link saying "Look at all of these bad things about Tor", and it would be links to Tor explanatory pages. It was around that time that I realised that when trying to give people an intuition for what software many Internet professionals trust, the list of "green flags" I identified was, in fact, the exact opposite of what the majority might guess as being good signs. "Large list of attractive sounding features" vs "Lists problems with the tool as prominently as benefits" ; "Sold and marketed by a large well-known company" vs "Developed by a small, volunteer team" ; "Free to download" vs "Costs money"; "Modern, professionally-designed website" vs "Looks like it was built in 1997", etc, etc.

cxr 2y ago

Which is exactly what shouldn't happen. Every serious proposal/RFC needs to have an honest stab at what the competition looks like and why it won't work there. > I often see people believe in their solution and think theirs are better than the others. They defend their cases without having an exact reason. These situations often create long and meaningless discussions that go nowhere. From <https://candost.blog/how-to-stop-endless-discussions/ https://candost.blog/how-to-stop-endless-discussions/>. (Comments: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25622149 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25622149>)