←back to thread

272 points abdisalan | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mvkel ◴[] No.42175730[source]
> time to run it after not touching it for 4 years

> Two hours of my life gone...

Two hours of work after 4 years sounds ... perfectly acceptable?

And it would have run perfectly right away if the node version was specified, so a good learning, too

This feels like making a mountain out of a mole hill

replies(21): >>42175799 #>>42175818 #>>42175826 #>>42175846 #>>42176217 #>>42176305 #>>42176788 #>>42176958 #>>42181497 #>>42182299 #>>42182564 #>>42182778 #>>42183020 #>>42183093 #>>42183501 #>>42183725 #>>42184814 #>>42192770 #>>42193606 #>>42194518 #>>42211558 #
mattgreenrocks ◴[] No.42175799[source]
Other ecosystems usually do not have problems to the extent the author had.
replies(2): >>42175953 #>>42177000 #
hathawsh ◴[] No.42175953[source]
I am deep in the Python ecosystem, and I love Python, but I have to admit that Python has the same issue. Reviving a medium-size project after 4 or more years usually means I have to catch up on a lot of new surprising deprecations. That's not because there's anything wrong with Python; it's more of an economic issue: the authors of active libraries have little or no economic incentive to support old, deprecated versions, so they just don't. That's life in the modern world. It is a deep problem that should theoretically affect every large software ecosystem because very few library authors can predict the future with great accuracy, and very few open source library authors have any significant incentive to support old ideas.
replies(3): >>42176165 #>>42181256 #>>42184012 #
1. lmm ◴[] No.42181256{3}[source]
> That's not because there's anything wrong with Python

It's absolutely because there's something wrong with Python, the package management, and also the type safety. JVM languages haven't had these problems for 20+ years.