3 ms·
As a Rails developer, naturally I appreciate the thought that testing is good and upgrading is nice. But it seems a bit odd to advocate a completely context-ins
by decasia 13y ago
As a Rails developer, naturally I appreciate the thought that testing is good and upgrading is nice. But it seems a bit odd to advocate a completely context-insensitive heuristic for deciding whether upgrading frameworks is a good idea. Surely there are cases where the costs exceed the benefits, for any number of unpredictable organizational reasons. For instance, the application is on life support and slated to be replaced, and there are other ways of mitigating new security risks in the meantime...
- pessimizer 13y ago>it seems a bit odd to advocate a completely context-insensitive heuristic for deciding whether upgrading frameworks is a good idea. For a contractor who generates income from upgrading Rails? Not likely. The answer will always be: "If it is possible to upgrade, you should have us upgrading for you." Excellent and traditional way to turn a 5 hour job into a 50 hour job.
- decasia 13y agoNot going to disagree with that analysis. Relatedly, there was something odd to me about the tone or implicit audience of that article, as if it was written more to persuade managers than developers.