Opining on "modern" development practices (was Re: Merging the “binary” NPM importer?)

[Katherine Cox-Buday]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> It’s an unusual situation, but it seems that “modern” development
> practices make it hard or impossible to meet our standards in the first
> place; yet, we’re missing out on a whole range of free software packages
> by not doing anything.  Offering the tool while not compromising on our
> standards seems like a reasonable middle ground.

I think this is yet another example of the "worse is better"[1] debate, 
seemingly still ongoing in the world, thirty years later.

I don't have much practical to say on the subject, but a few things have often 
occurred to me which someone may find useful or interesting to ruminate on:

1. The premise of the "worse is better" philosophy seems to me to have been
   proven true. Development tools and environments which are easier to get,
   start using, and distribute, proliferate. And these communities produce the
   most software. As you pointed out, some of the software itself is free and
   useful.

2. Sometimes these ecosystems (e.g. Javascript) are so volatile, bad things fall
   out. It is difficult to stay abreast of changes, there are security issues
   (e.g. tainting a very common dependency, bootstrapping issues, etc),
   maintenance issues, and lots of wasted effort rewriting things. Still, a
   large percentage of developers' time and energy goes into that ecosystem
   because of point one, and they create useful things.

3. Sometimes these ecosystems are so volatile, good things fall out. Through the
   lens of experience, solutions and tools are created which address the hard
   won lessons.

4. This seems to be how nature and evolution work.

Me? I like well-ordered things that have been thoughtfully produced. But I 
think about number four a lot.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better

-- 
Katherine