4 ms·

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you, and I don't think it's really a problem. Hell, if it is it's not a problem to use both libraries, and to serve 1.x to thos

by EnderMB 14y ago

Don't get me wrong. I agree with you, and I don't think it's really a problem. Hell, if it is it's not a problem to use both libraries, and to serve 1.x to those using older browsers. It's just a shift in the core mentality of what people view jQuery as. Many of us use jQuery because it works, regardless of what browser a user is on. For a lot of others, jQuery IS JavaScript. If they want to do something on their site, they look for a jQuery plugin and use that, otherwise in their mind it'll be too much work to get it done. It's depressing, but it's the reality of development. One point you raise that I do disagree with is: > Go in 10.9 and fix any incompatibility you find with the latest browsers yourself. Or wait for someone of the multi-million strong web dev community to do it for you. This is the classic open-source "fuck you with a smile" response. Fixing new functionality is not an attractive problem, and out of the multi-million strong community I can see very few people with both the skills, the time, or the desire to fix these problems, and those that could fix the problems are more likely to wait for someone else to do it. I'd consider myself fairly handy with JavaScript, but I'm also a very busy man, and my office won't want me spending company time fixing a bug in a plugin if there is another way. Also, there isn't a developer alive that likes fixing legacy bugs. I can think of a million things I'd rather do than fix IE6-7 bugs.

Robin_Message 14y ago
> This is the classic open-source "fuck you with a smile" response. Since open source is free and open, it really can't fuck you †. You can however screw yourself by relying on it to do your work for you. As you say, few people have the skills, time and desire to fix these sorts of problems, and that means you can't rely on open source to fix them for you. Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this called "money" which companies have and which can be given to a developer with the skills who will magically convert that money into the time and desire to fix the problem. † If your company is willing to use open source, but only when it is perfect, and not willing to help improve it, maybe they are the doing the fucking?
- talmand 14y ago
  I like how you denied the "fuck you with a smile" response with the very "fuck you with a smile" response he was complaining about.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jmathai 14y ago
    The point is that if you're a company that's relying on an open source project and not contributing back to it then you have no basis to be "fucked" by the project.
    - talmand 14y ago
      Well, I believe the person in question wasn't saying that the project itself was saying "fuck you", but the people answering the response were saying it. The point being that there are too many people that say if you don't contribute then shut the fuck up. But, of course, different people contribute in different ways. Not everyone who uses open source software are developers, and for many of these people the simple fact they use the software is their way of contributing. So when one of these people stand up and say, "I have this problem", the appropriate response is not "contribute or shut the fuck up". This is the response that is being encouraged here. It is irrelevant if the statement about a problem came from an individual or a company. The reason that such a response is a bad idea is that it actively encourages people to not use the software in question. If the goal is to get everyone to stop using open source software, then by all means continue to tell them to fuck off.
      - jmathai 14y ago
        There's more than just source code contributions that help an open source project. Being the lead dev of a fairly well used open source project I can say for certain that too many people I've had interactions with that want a bug fixed or a new feature added do so with entitlement. As if by not doing it they're being told to fuck off. I may have dramatized it a bit but there's something about software that people feel entitled to get value at no cost.
mattstreet 14y ago
I think we'll get a lot less from the open source community if they think they have to support all legacy crap for all time. Eventually there comes a time to move on. We're just arguing about if its time yet. People can still keep using IE 6/7 for the shitty inhouse apps written for it by their company a decade ago, and use a damn modern browser for everything else.
- EnderMB 14y ago
  > People can still keep using IE 6/7 for the shitty inhouse apps written for it by their company a decade ago, and use a damn modern browser for everything else. You should try working for an agency that handles large clients. A year ago I was still building pages for an airport that needed to support IE6 to a functional level. We charged a huge number for that support, but this was such a large client that had a proven need for it (analytics and sales data) that they would happily pay several thousand for us to build a section that supported these users. Luckily we left that client, but we still have a number of clients that want IE7 browser support. I'd like nothing more than to ditch older browsers, but until XP dies many of us will still have to support older browsers. Once XP is gone, the older browsers are gone.
  - nathan_long 14y ago
    >> A year ago I was still building pages for an airport that needed to support IE6 to a functional level. We charged a huge number for that support Bravo. What you did was rational, explains why the jQuery team is doing this, and gives you your solution. You and they both recognize that supporting old browsers is expensive. They're dropping that support. You're charging a lot to deal with it, which incentivizes clients to stop asking for it. With the extra money you are charging, you can, if necessary, pay someone to fix bugs in jQuery that affect those clients' projects. You can contribute those patches back. Everyone wins. I understand your emotional response to "losing" support for browsers, but this is not a story of open source failing you. You could have been paying for a proprietary library instead of using jQuery. jQuery has already saved you thousands by being free. You don't get to dictate the project's direction, but you have lots of savings ready to patch it as needed. I'd say that's a pretty good deal.
coldtea 14y ago
>This is the classic open-source "fuck you with a smile" response. Fixing new functionality is not an attractive problem, and out of the multi-million strong community I can see very few people with both the skills, the time, or the desire to fix these problems, and those that could fix the problems are more likely to wait for someone else to do it. If it was something like a database engine, an obscure language, some network utility, a server, etc, I might have agreed. That is, if it was something esoteric, that needs high skills, and only some very knowledgable of it's internals could adopt it. But this is jQuery we're talking about. Not rocket science. Lots of guys have the skills and time to fix these problems. >I'd consider myself fairly handy with JavaScript, but I'm also a very busy man, and my office won't want me spending company time fixing a bug in a plugin if there is another way. Also, there isn't a developer alive that likes fixing legacy bugs. I can think of a million things I'd rather do than fix IE6-7 bugs. And wouldn't the same exact reasonings apply to the jQuery team? They can also could think "of a million things they'd rather do than fix IE6-7 bugs". Still, they said the will release 1.10, and support old browsers for as long as needed. If they hadn't released 2.0 that would also be the case. They would support old browsers for as long as needed. The only difference is now they are doing it with two codebases. That said, your company might not want you "spending company time fixing a bug in a plugin", but for popular plugins there are companies with the money and the resources to have their stuff fix them if the need arises.

by EnderMB 14y ago

Robin_Message 14y ago

> This is the classic open-source "fuck you with a smile" response. Since open source is free and open, it really can't fuck you †. You can however screw yourself by relying on it to do your work for you. As you say, few people have the skills, time and desire to fix these sorts of problems, and that means you can't rely on open source to fix them for you. Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this called "money" which companies have and which can be given to a developer with the skills who will magically convert that money into the time and desire to fix the problem. † If your company is willing to use open source, but only when it is perfect, and not willing to help improve it, maybe they are the doing the fucking?

talmand 14y ago
I like how you denied the "fuck you with a smile" response with the very "fuck you with a smile" response he was complaining about.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jmathai 14y ago
  The point is that if you're a company that's relying on an open source project and not contributing back to it then you have no basis to be "fucked" by the project.
  - talmand 14y ago
    Well, I believe the person in question wasn't saying that the project itself was saying "fuck you", but the people answering the response were saying it. The point being that there are too many people that say if you don't contribute then shut the fuck up. But, of course, different people contribute in different ways. Not everyone who uses open source software are developers, and for many of these people the simple fact they use the software is their way of contributing. So when one of these people stand up and say, "I have this problem", the appropriate response is not "contribute or shut the fuck up". This is the response that is being encouraged here. It is irrelevant if the statement about a problem came from an individual or a company. The reason that such a response is a bad idea is that it actively encourages people to not use the software in question. If the goal is to get everyone to stop using open source software, then by all means continue to tell them to fuck off.
    - jmathai 14y ago
      There's more than just source code contributions that help an open source project. Being the lead dev of a fairly well used open source project I can say for certain that too many people I've had interactions with that want a bug fixed or a new feature added do so with entitlement. As if by not doing it they're being told to fuck off. I may have dramatized it a bit but there's something about software that people feel entitled to get value at no cost.

mattstreet 14y ago

I think we'll get a lot less from the open source community if they think they have to support all legacy crap for all time. Eventually there comes a time to move on. We're just arguing about if its time yet. People can still keep using IE 6/7 for the shitty inhouse apps written for it by their company a decade ago, and use a damn modern browser for everything else.

EnderMB 14y ago
> People can still keep using IE 6/7 for the shitty inhouse apps written for it by their company a decade ago, and use a damn modern browser for everything else. You should try working for an agency that handles large clients. A year ago I was still building pages for an airport that needed to support IE6 to a functional level. We charged a huge number for that support, but this was such a large client that had a proven need for it (analytics and sales data) that they would happily pay several thousand for us to build a section that supported these users. Luckily we left that client, but we still have a number of clients that want IE7 browser support. I'd like nothing more than to ditch older browsers, but until XP dies many of us will still have to support older browsers. Once XP is gone, the older browsers are gone.
- nathan_long 14y ago
  >> A year ago I was still building pages for an airport that needed to support IE6 to a functional level. We charged a huge number for that support Bravo. What you did was rational, explains why the jQuery team is doing this, and gives you your solution. You and they both recognize that supporting old browsers is expensive. They're dropping that support. You're charging a lot to deal with it, which incentivizes clients to stop asking for it. With the extra money you are charging, you can, if necessary, pay someone to fix bugs in jQuery that affect those clients' projects. You can contribute those patches back. Everyone wins. I understand your emotional response to "losing" support for browsers, but this is not a story of open source failing you. You could have been paying for a proprietary library instead of using jQuery. jQuery has already saved you thousands by being free. You don't get to dictate the project's direction, but you have lots of savings ready to patch it as needed. I'd say that's a pretty good deal.

coldtea 14y ago

>This is the classic open-source "fuck you with a smile" response. Fixing new functionality is not an attractive problem, and out of the multi-million strong community I can see very few people with both the skills, the time, or the desire to fix these problems, and those that could fix the problems are more likely to wait for someone else to do it. If it was something like a database engine, an obscure language, some network utility, a server, etc, I might have agreed. That is, if it was something esoteric, that needs high skills, and only some very knowledgable of it's internals could adopt it. But this is jQuery we're talking about. Not rocket science. Lots of guys have the skills and time to fix these problems. >I'd consider myself fairly handy with JavaScript, but I'm also a very busy man, and my office won't want me spending company time fixing a bug in a plugin if there is another way. Also, there isn't a developer alive that likes fixing legacy bugs. I can think of a million things I'd rather do than fix IE6-7 bugs. And wouldn't the same exact reasonings apply to the jQuery team? They can also could think "of a million things they'd rather do than fix IE6-7 bugs". Still, they said the will release 1.10, and support old browsers for as long as needed. If they hadn't released 2.0 that would also be the case. They would support old browsers for as long as needed. The only difference is now they are doing it with two codebases. That said, your company might not want you "spending company time fixing a bug in a plugin", but for popular plugins there are companies with the money and the resources to have their stuff fix them if the need arises.