3 ms·

I don't disagree, but unfortunately believing that humans - no matter how logical CS people tend to be - will always think completely logical and rational is a

by nmjohn 12y ago

I don't disagree, but unfortunately believing that humans - no matter how logical CS people tend to be - will always think completely logical and rational is a flawed line of thinking. Yes, people _should_ get over changes in version number, but in reality they don't. So library authors cater to reality, not how they wish things should be. That is the problem, and why semvar is broken. Not in principle it isn't, but in how it actually functions in the hands of humans.

cwyers 12y ago
Well, people use version number to communicate a lot of things that aren't captured by the strict, rigid form of semver. And when you follow semver, you omit communication about all of those other things. Now, if you think that the only things worth caring about are what semver says matters, then you don't view this as important. But there's a lot more to the world than package managers, and expecting people to do things the way that's most convenient for package managers is just a little bit silly, no? Package managers are there to serve us, not the other way around. So maybe instead of "fixing" version numbers so that they're the most convenient for package managers, maybe we can fix package managers so that they use something better suited to handling dependencies than version numbers, so that we can use version numbers to communicate with people, not just package managers.
- nmjohn 12y ago
  I should have added a conclusion to my post but I sometimes feel they don't always further technical discussions because once a conclusion is applied, dissenters tend to ignore the logic leading up to it no matter how valid. But I do agree that package managers are there to serve us, not the other way around. The unfortunate thing is this issue is one of differences in human nature and how a given person prefers their system to be - rigid and concrete maximizing efficiency; or fluid and communicative adding overhead but increasing understandability.

by nmjohn 12y ago

cwyers 12y ago

Well, people use version number to communicate a lot of things that aren't captured by the strict, rigid form of semver. And when you follow semver, you omit communication about all of those other things. Now, if you think that the only things worth caring about are what semver says matters, then you don't view this as important. But there's a lot more to the world than package managers, and expecting people to do things the way that's most convenient for package managers is just a little bit silly, no? Package managers are there to serve us, not the other way around. So maybe instead of "fixing" version numbers so that they're the most convenient for package managers, maybe we can fix package managers so that they use something better suited to handling dependencies than version numbers, so that we can use version numbers to communicate with people, not just package managers.

nmjohn 12y ago
I should have added a conclusion to my post but I sometimes feel they don't always further technical discussions because once a conclusion is applied, dissenters tend to ignore the logic leading up to it no matter how valid. But I do agree that package managers are there to serve us, not the other way around. The unfortunate thing is this issue is one of differences in human nature and how a given person prefers their system to be - rigid and concrete maximizing efficiency; or fluid and communicative adding overhead but increasing understandability.