3 ms·
I don't think the GP is criticizing the article, he's using the article to criticize Rails. Not so much "nothing to see here" as "well, what did you expect from
by jleader 14y ago
I don't think the GP is criticizing the article, he's using the article to criticize Rails. Not so much "nothing to see here" as "well, what did you expect from Rails?".
(I'm explaining what I think the GP meant, not my position; I'm an old Perl guy, still undecided on the overall trade-offs offered by Rails)
- badgar 14y agoYes, I was pointing out that Rails made backwards-incompatible changes to core functionality in a point release primarily targeting security. I don't know how much more succinctly I could have originally put it, and I thought that it was obvious that this is a Bad Thing. You can't reach everybody.
- michaelfairley 14y agoThe "backwards-incompatible change" was part of a security fix, not an unrelated non-security change.
- badgar 14y agoGithub's code doesn't rely on the security flaw to function. Their code should keep working after the security fix. Anyone who has ever consumed an API to build something they don't want to break understands this.
- stanleydrew 14y agoYes, it is obvious that this is a Bad Thing. That's why, no matter how succinct, I don't think your comment is particularly useful. I didn't find that it added anything to the discussion.
- badgar 14y agoNot every comment on Hacker News is useful. I'd say I was going for poignant if anything.