3 ms·
I think the article makes a good point. Counter-point: at least in the open source world, popularity can translate into lots of eyeballs on the code, lots of b
by _greim_ 12y ago
I think the article makes a good point.
Counter-point: at least in the open source world, popularity can translate into lots of eyeballs on the code, lots of bug fixes, better ability to hunt down solutions on Google, hire people, etc.
Counter-counter-point: lots of people depending on a project may slow its progress and prevent its maintainers from correcting fundamental design mistakes, all for fear of breaking existing installs.
- abarkai 12y agoDead-on. Lots of eyeballs. Even in a non-open-source tool, lots of users means lots of reference on Stack Overflow, and an exponentially better chance of not encountering bugs for your particular use-case. Any framework of moderate size has bugs in it. The only question is, has the bug that would slow you down been fixed yet? That's why the size of the alternative is so important. If the alternative is just 300 lines of code (as in this case), then even if you do run into bugs, fixing them is gonna be trivial. But what about 3,000 lines? 30,000? ... I wouldn't say everybody should automatically go with the popular option, because this kind of herd mentality can really be destructive. If another, less popular tool seems better for your use, give it a fair consideration. I've actually personally chosen that route several times, and I would again. But by doing so you accept the strong possibility of dealing with bugs which your competition doesn't need to worry about.
- calebm 12y agoIn addition, popularity translates into more libraries, which constitutes a huge portion of a platform's value.