Thread

1. hasperdi · 1790522427 · focus · HN ↗

   [dead]

   1. Grombobulous · 1790522790 · focus · HN ↗

      Put another way, why did the author “test in production” on their important work when evaluating a new piece of software they were unfamiliar with?

      Vim is a very popular piece of software to the point where there are dozens or perhaps hundreds of forks made by all kinds of people. Many if not most of these forks are probably not very good.

   2. kccqzy · 1790522886 · focus · HN ↗

      Right. The point of the article is for the author to tell us neovim doesn’t care about their users and the author recommends us to use something else.
   3. xenophonf · 1790522983 · focus · HN ↗

      It's hardly a rant. Not once did either author question the birthright of the Neovim developers in Russian.

      I think more software engineers should worry about this stuff. If I had to teach a bunch of juniors in a computer science or software engineering degree program, I'd make them read this as a case study alongside good ol' Therac-25. The software we create is _useful_. How it affects other people _matters_. We ought to care about that no matter what the legal disclaimers say.

   4. planckscnst · 1790523156 · focus · HN ↗

      And you can also rant about it so other people are not harmed in the same way without warning
   5. sdcfgy · 1790523272 · focus · HN ↗

      I hate this attitude. It is what makes the free software community look like utter dicks to the user community, particularly those who can't really fork or contribute to it. It's a serious image issue.

      Hell I can and have contributed and have been told to fuck off and fork it or entirely ignored.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.