.Net Open Source Libraries
-
@blakeyrat said:
When PHP5 came out, did all PHP projects instantly convert to it? I mean, is this normal in the open source community?
My web host still defaults to PHP4, one uses a .htaccess override or *.php5 extension to get PHP5. But it sounds like less stuff broke between PHP 4 and 5 compared to .Net 3.5 and 4?
-
The library is open source, right. So here is one thing you can do:
[1] Get the source for the 3.5 library and make sure you can compile it. This includes the not-implemented feature.
[2] Get the source for the 4.0 library and make sure you can compile it. This includes the implemented feature.
[3] Lift the implemented feature source code from the 4.0 source code and drop it in to the 3.5 library. You may discover why it wasn't implemented until 4.
-
@AndyCanfield said:
[2] Get the source for the 4.0 library and make sure you can compile it. This includes the implemented feature.
[3] Lift the implemented feature source code from the 4.0 source code and drop it in to the 3.5 library. You may discover why it wasn't implemented until 4.
I am curious about this, merely out of an academic perspective. Just take the source from the open source project and compile it. What happens?
-
@blakeyrat said:
Wow the troll level's really ramped up today.
That doesn't even come close to answering the question.Here's my answers:
What are the goals of the ideal library?
1) Saving programmer time and effort
2) Providing a central source for bug fixes/protocol changes/etc
3) Be flexible and general enough to be used in any type of application
4) Reduce resources used by the resulting program, since DLLs are sharedHow does porting the library to .net 4, and removing .net 3.5 support, forward those goals?
1) Fuck if I know!Sorry if I came off as Trolling but I wasn't. Again, you are confusing the goals of a professional library with an amateur open source library. Like I said in the original post, most Open Source libraries come from a developer coding up something that makes their life easier, and thinks that others could get some benefit from it. The key customer in reality is themselves. They may make changes or fix issues that other people find, but their core customer is still themselves, and if they start wanting to use .Net 4 features they will shrug off .Net 3.5 (especially when it's been out for well over a year already). In all of your 4 goals you list, they all are applied but to the developer themselves only, they aren't concerned about those 4 bullet points applying to other people.
Frankly, when I write a library and put it online I'm still coding it with myself in mind knowing that if it doesn't exactly fit someone else's needs they will either fork it, or find some alternatives that are out there. It's not like there's a huge lack of open sourced libraries out there. Github especially makes this quick and easy.
And like others mentioned, it's free. They don't owe anything to you, especially if it's a library some developer has worked on in his free time.
-
@KallDrexx said:
And like others mentioned, it's free. They don't owe anything to you, especially if it's a library some developer has worked on in his free time.
Indeed, although many (not all of course) are often so delighted that someone is using and getting some benefit from their work that they're willing to help / support you even without any money changing hands. Personally, I've turned down money offers (nothing giant) but still helped out. The money puts me on the hook in the way that playing around but still helping out doesn't, even though the other guy gets some of the support that he wants.
From blakey's comments about the developer, it sounds like this might be already be happening.
-
Why not just fork the last .NET 3.5 version of the library and add the feature?
-
I'll gladly compile it for you if you send me teh codez.
-
@KallDrexx said:
Sorry if I came off as Trolling but I wasn't. Again, you are confusing the goals of a professional library with an amateur open source library.
I'm talking about the goals of a library. It doesn't matter where the library comes from, the above-mentioned goals are goals they should strive for.
@KallDrexx said:
Like I said in the original post, most Open Source libraries come from a developer coding up something that makes their life easier, and thinks that others could get some benefit from it.
Look. I'm not saying he INTENTIONALLY made my life more difficult. But I am saying that, due to his poor choices, using his library has cost me more time than I would have spent had I never used his library in the first place.
So if his goal is to help others "get some benefit from it", then he's failed at that goal-- I have not gotten any benefit in the long-term.
@KallDrexx said:
The key customer in reality is themselves.
Then why put it on a website and tell other people to use it?
Or, look at this another way: if your "key customer" wants a new feature X, does that mean you fuck over all the insurance customers you have? Does that mean you break backwards-compatibility with hundreds of other customers using your product?
@KallDrexx said:
They may make changes or fix issues that other people find, but their core customer is still themselves, and if they start wanting to use .Net 4 features they will shrug off .Net 3.5 (especially when it's been out for well over a year already).
That's fine, but when you have customers, you can't just ignore their needs in favor of your own.
@KallDrexx said:
In all of your 4 goals you list, they all are applied but to the developer themselves only, they aren't concerned about those 4 bullet points applying to other people.
Then why put it on a website and tell other people to use it? Look, he INVITED me to download and use the library. The website has all kinds of great language about how it can save me time and effort. You're saying he was lying to me. Do you really believe that? Because I don't.
It's much more likely that he's simply ignorant and assumes all other developers are exactly like himself, and thus would have no problem with moving to .net 4. But like I said above, any assumption you make lowers the value of your library. (Think about the guy writing Aptana Studio who assumed Java picked the correct AppData path, and ended up with a program that literally can't even run on my computer.)
Why didn't he do research? A quick survey to ask how many people are using the library in .net 4 apps? That would have been almost acting like a professional developer, if he based his framework version on actual data instead of his own knee-jerk gut instinct.
@KallDrexx said:
Frankly, when I write a library and put it online I'm still coding it with myself in mind knowing that if it doesn't exactly fit someone else's needs they will either fork it, or find some alternatives that are out there.
Then you're part of the problem, and not part of the solution.
Forking is a good thing when it's *necessary*. If you're relying on forking to solve every little teensy compatibility issue with your library, all you'll end up with is 37 copies of the same library, half of which have a security hole, and half of which stopped working 2 years ago when the protocol changed. Do you honestly believe that is a good way to manage a project?
@KallDrexx said:
And like others mentioned, it's free. They don't owe anything to you, especially if it's a library some developer has worked on in his free time.
I'm so fucking sick of hearing this. No, he doesn't fucking owe me fucking anything, ok? Which is why I'm not asking him for anything. Why is everybody in this thread assuming I am!? I haven't asked the developer to fix the bug. I haven't asked the developer to port the library to .net 3.5 I haven't asked anything of him. STOP PUTTING WORDS INTO MY FUCKING MOUTH also fuck you.
Rant-aside, while he does indeed not owe me anything, I do believe:
1) If he makes promises to customers, he should make good on those promises
2) If he were a professional developer, he wouldn't have ported the library to .net 4 until he could show (with real evidence) that an overwhelming number of his users have switched to .net 4.@hoodaticus said:
I'll gladly compile it for you if you send me teh codez.
Doesn't help; it'll compile into a .net 4 binary, and then I'll still have to upgrade the entire rest of the project to use it. Again, unless you know of a way to link a .net 4 DLL into a .net 3.5 project.
-
@jpa said:
Why not just fork the last .NET 3.5 version of the library and add the feature?
Read the OP.
-
@boomzilla said:
From blakey's comments about the developer, it sounds like this might be already be happening.
He's already made two or three modifications to the library to suit my needs, and I've already thrown him a few bucks of my company's money. Considering how aggressively he moved the library to .net 4, I doubt he'd consider moving it back to 3.5, but admittedly I haven't yet asked and I'm not sure that I will.
Because even if it does resolve this specific problem, what will it be next time? I don't want to have to babysit this library for the rest of my career. I want a library where I can just slot in the new DLL when Twitter changes their protocol (you know, like... how normal non-open source libraries are supposed to be used.) If he's going to aggressively break compatibility with no warning, and for no good reason I can determine, then I really don't want to be a user of it.
And releasing a version of it with a NotImplementedException is... well, I don't want to support any developer who would pull that shit. Have some fucking pride, open source developers! What's wrong with you!
-
@blakeyrat said:
Considering how aggressively he moved the library to .net 4, I doubt he'd consider moving it back to 3.5, but admittedly I haven't yet asked and I'm not sure that I will.
I'm curious, because it doesn't seem obvious from the rest of the thread, how aggressively this really was. OK, so we know that 4.0 was released April 2010. When did the library go to 4.0? Does he have a published roadmap or anything (forums, IRC, etc)? Or do new releases just sort of appear occasionally?
@blakeyrat said:
And releasing a version of it with a NotImplementedException is... well, I don't want to support any developer who would pull that shit. Have some fucking pride, open source developers! What's wrong with you!
Maybe. It's hard to say with what I think I know. Seems like it would be better not to have the interface or method or whatever not there at all than a stub like this. But maybe he needed / wanted some other methods of an interface or class or whatever, and either hadn't gotten to this part, or hadn't figured it out or whatever. Was it a lesser evil to ending up with ISuperDuper, ISuperDuperEx, ISuperDuperExEx, etc? I guess this goes back to the roadmap question, too.
-
Look, I've made my points, I don't know what your further grilling is intended to accomplish.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Look, I've made my points, I don't know what your further grilling is intended to accomplish.
What grilling? I was just curious. I'll live if you don't want to answer or whatever. Some of your outrage would make more or less sense to me based on the answers, of course. I like to see that my flames are directed at the more worthy target.
-
There are a lot of very excellent points in this post; on both sides of this OSS coin. I definitely agree with blakey that any project - open source or otherwise - has a certain responsibility to their users, no exception. If you release something that other people may use, you should be more careful in how you maintain it to ensure that you don't just up and ruin somebody's project. For years my biggest complaint against OSS is that they all too often (99% of the time) take the "They are volunteers, and thus can do whatever they want" attitude with software projects. I call bullshit on this mentality, as it is unprofessional, and counter-productive. Sure there are things in any software project that are undesirable and otherwise a PITA, but they are also necessary evils. Maintaining compatibility is one of them; at the very least, you need to keep the compatibility around for one version, and document the shit out of things to make sure that you make your users aware of the upcoming changes.
But, yes, on the flip side of this issue, because OSS is what it is, ultimately when shit like this happens it is up to the user to own up to their error in judgement. Sure, there is no way to know if/when something like this would occur, but it is your responsibility to do everything that you can to anticipate such WTFery. Unfortunately, the community is what the community is, and I personally don't see that changing any time soon (it's such a sad state, too). While I do use plenty of OSS products, in the back of my mind I know that there is always that potential for something to go wrong, and not being able to get the "community" to fix it to my liking. As such, I go into any project with the expectation that at some point I may have to overload some behavior to get what I need.
So while the principle of the argument is very sound, and very true, and agreeable, there is also the matter of how you just have to do what you need to do to keep moving forward in a positive manner. If that means implementing a missing piece of functionality that should have been there, then that's what you have to do.
-
@esoterik said:
@Renan said:
Explanation
tl;dr
The funny thing is that you sound like the typical .NET programmer.
-
@Zemm said:
@Zemm said:@blakeyrat said:
When PHP5 came out, did all PHP projects instantly convert to it? I mean, is this normal in the open source community?
My web host still defaults to PHP4, one uses a .htaccess override or *.php5 extension to get PHP5. But it sounds like less stuff broke between PHP 4 and 5 compared to .Net 3.5 and 4?
To my knowledge, NOTHING broke from .net 3.5 to 4. More stuff got added - so it's just overly-paranoid security weenies and accountants that prevent .net 4 rollouts.@blakeyrat said:
When PHP5 came out, did all PHP projects instantly convert to it? I mean, is this normal in the open source community?
My web host still defaults to PHP4, one uses a .htaccess override or *.php5 extension to get PHP5. But it sounds like less stuff broke between PHP 4 and 5 compared to .Net 3.5 and 4?
-
@Weng said:
@Zemm said:
To my knowledge, NOTHING broke from .net 3.5 to 4. More stuff got added - so it's just overly-paranoid security weenies and accountants that prevent .net 4 rollouts.@blakeyrat said:
When PHP5 came out, did all PHP projects instantly convert to it? I mean, is this normal in the open source community?
My web host still defaults to PHP4, one uses a .htaccess override or *.php5 extension to get PHP5. But it sounds like less stuff broke between PHP 4 and 5 compared to .Net 3.5 and 4?
PHP5 was bleeding-edge when it arrived because of the number of bugs and gotchas, but the amount of testing and validation that MS puts into their releases means I have never encountered a scenario where a .NET release can be called bleeding edge; I'd even go as far as saying that the term "bleeding edge" doesn't even exist in the world of the CLR. I've upgraded a project over the years from 1.0 to 1.1 to 2.0 to 3.5 and nothing has ever broken, and I doubt it will in future.
-
@Renan said:
stuff
You said a couple minutes of fiddling. I took that to mean that you could maybe change a config or something. Having to create your own tools to target a different compiler hardly counts.Anyway, I just for some reason thought your answer was simpler than what I already said, which was... use the compiler provided with the framework.
-
@Sutherlands said:
Anyway, I just for some reason thought your answer was simpler than what I already said, which was... use the compiler provided with the framework.
In the past, I played around with writing ILAsm and building assemblies directly from that. It was pretty straightforward, and it seems like adding in the step of calling the C# compiler shouldn't be too difficult. Part of this dilemma seems to be that MS has done a great job associating CLR programming wtih VisualStudio. It seems to me that often, rather than talking about which version of the framework or language they're using .Net programmers talk about which version of VS they're using.
If everything is all lined up, it's really easy to be productive, etc, but otherwise, we see how Visual Studio rots the mind.
-
@boomzilla said:
What grilling? I was just curious. I'll live if you don't want to answer or whatever. Some of your outrage would make more or less sense to me based on the answers, of course. I like to see that my flames are directed at the more worthy target.
If you've read through this entire thread and still don't have enough information to decide whether or not it's a WTF, I guess it'll just have to remain a mystery.
-
@blakeyrat said:
If you've read through this entire thread and still don't have enough information to decide whether or not it's a WTF, I guess it'll just have to remain a mystery.
Nah, I can make up my mind on incomplete information. From what I know, you had unrealistic expectations and are TRWTF. See? Easy.
-
@Renan said:
I'll handily admit that I'm a god damned idiot when it comes to a lot of topics - but not knowing exactly what it is your toolkit actually does is inexcusable. I have at least a vague idea of how to target framework 4 with VS2k8, but I don't have VS2k8 around to try it out.When I worked with .NET people were always tellin gme how .NET made stuff too easy since you only need to know how to drag and drop, and that real programmers coded in (insert your favorite IDE here). There were even topics here in TDWTF where people would talk about whether .NET programmers are as good as any other kind of coder around (apples and oranges, IMO).
That said, it's by far not an ideal situation because Intellisense won't know about any of the new version 4 features. I can imagine such a trick would be useful for a one off build of some third party code, but to use it every day for an actual product seems counter to good practice.
-
Sounds positively mild compared to the worst experience I've had with an open-source library. It was a JOGL widget kit. The only guy with check-in rights decided to do a major redesign. In trunk, because he didn't trust branches. And abandoned it part-way through when he'd got the widgets he wanted working. I spent a week cherry-picking all the commits after the big break into a checkout from before, and then kept it up to date until I left the company which was using it.
-
OSS does have upwards compatability problems.
For one thing, it is common for a program to demand Library XYZ-3. A couple of years later Linux is shipping with Library XYZ-5 and maybe Library XYZ-4. I have been in a position of having to find an old system installation and copy Library XYZ-3 from it. AFAIK, unlike Microsoft's DLLs, in Linux upwards compatability is not to be trusted.
My greatest good example of upwards compatability is from Intel. I have a Qemu virtual machine that runs a CP/M-86 binary, 25 years after it was compiled.
A bad example: XMMS. Version 1 was IMHO the best music player for Linux. But then the developers decided they wanted to be system programmers and do it as a daemon. XMMS2 is a music-playing daemon. As a result, they just threw away the entire GUI! Not enough status, I guess.
It is, however, OPEN SOURCE. If you wish you can grab the code and fix it, change it, do it yourself, "fork it".
You say you don't want to spend the rest of your career supporting this library. Well, have you never heard of "job security"? You only have to support it until the company forks out for .NET 4, and until then you're a critical person.
-
@AndyCanfield said:
Well, have you never heard of "job security"?
I consider my professional reputation much more important. I don't believe in the "high priesthood of technology" because fuck that noise.
@AndyCanfield said:
You only have to support it until the company forks out for .NET 4, and until then you're a critical person.
Does anybody read these threads? Or is it customary to only read one sentence, then post?
-
Yeah, it's weird dude. I think there's a real urge to use the "latest and 'greatest'" even though it might not even make sense. For example, we had this one younger guy who couldn't build one of our projects that every other new person on the team was able to build and run just fine with the given instructions. After wasting time and money, errr figuring out what the problem was, it turned out that he was trying to get the project to work with java 7, which had just come out. He then suggested to the team that we first upconvert to jdk7 because, and I'm paraphrasing here, "we don't want to fall behind the current jdk release." I'm sure there's some decent stuff in jdk7, but it doesn't have closures, and whatever features it does have certainly aren't worth the hassle of upgrading our shit. But it seems like he was ready to just furiously jerk off and use jdk7 because it was new, and therefore had to be better. Or something.
I definitely disagree that open source shit has to maintain some level of professionalism no matter what. It's a little different if they advertise it to be worthwhile, as is the case with the OP; in that case, yeah, I guess there's some responsibility to the end user. But I've known many a dude who have just uploaded their shit to give other people the opportunity to try it, and then a few dudes stumbled upon it and decided the developer should take the project in the direction that the crowd wanted it to go. Well, that's simply dumb as hell.
-
@blakeyrat said:
But I am saying that, due to his poor choices, using his library has cost me more time than I would have spent had I never used his library in the first place.
Bullshit.
Were there other libraries that offered the functionality you needed? Do you have reason to believe that the other libraries had implemented all the functionality and wouldn't have been suspect to poor choices by their authors?
If not, then it's either
[use his 3.5 compatible library] + [implement missing feature yourself] + [keep your library up to date with all the Twitter API changes]
or
[make your own library (including implementing the missing feature yourself)] + [keep your library up to date with all the Twitter API changes]
Unless using his library takes a lot more time than making your own library, you still have saved a lot of time.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Doesn't help; it'll compile into a .net 4 binary
What I don't understand, and what others have alluded to, is why don't you just recompile the source against the .net 3.5 framework? You don't even need Visual Studio 2010 for that. Here's a step-by-step:
- Check out the source from the developer's version control system
- Update his build scripts to target .net framework 3.5. Presumably it will be a .csproj file, which you can open in your text editor of choice and change the ToolsVersion attribute and TargetFrameworkVersion element values from 4.0 to 3.5
- Open it in Visual Studio 2008
- Fix all the broken .net 4.0 references by pointing them back to their .net 3.5 equivalents
- Attempt to build the project
- If it fails to build, fix the problem and return to step 5.
- Problem solved.
Speaking from experience, this isn't hardly as painful as it sounds.
-
@thecodes said:
Speaking from experience, this isn't hardly as painful as it sounds.
I get the distinct feeling that everybody is missing the point of the WTF, considering it's days later and people are still giving PROTIPS.
Regardless of how I resolve the problem, the WTF is that I shouldn't have to fucking fix it at fucking all! That the developer making this change to the library goes against the entire point of it being a library in the first place.
Did that completely sail over people's heads, or what?
Edit: Oh yeah, and you also missed the whole "I don't want to become sole maintainer of this solution for the rest of my natural life" factor.
-
Perhaps it is a WTF, but it certainly doesn't put you in the kind of peril you were talking about in the OP. Assuming the back-port works, you build it and ship your code compiled against it - just the same as you would have with the "official" version. If, for whatever reason, you need to update the library to the latest version, simply do a git pull or svn update on your modified copy. Hardly any efford required on your part.
-
Or you could just be a big man and admit you missed the point. You can be wrong; it's ok.
-
I'd be more interested to hear how you solved the problem.
-
I haven't yet. I spent Thursday working on other things, and it's been company vacation since then. So far the only move I've made it putting in a ticket to get a copy of VS2010.
Thrilling, huh?
-
@blakeyrat said:
Regardless of how I resolve the problem, the WTF is that I shouldn't have to fucking fix it at fucking all! That the developer making this change to the library goes against the entire point of it being a library in the first place.
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. It misses the point of supporting your particular situation. It's still useful, etc, to anyone using 4.0. And possibly to anyone using 3.5 who is able to compile source code (based on others' comments).
But no, you're probably right. Not supporting any of your users for life defeats the purpose of writing a library.
-
TheWTF seems to me that blakerat is ignoring any advice that is being given to fix it:
@blakerat said:
I get the distinct feeling that everybody is missing the point of the WTF, considering it's days later and people are still giving PROTIPS.
@blakeyrat said:
I haven't yet. I spent Thursday working on other things, and it's been company vacation since then. So far the only move I've made it putting in a ticket to get a copy of VS2010.
So basically it's more worthwhile to spend time moaning about a library that upgraded to a framework version that's been out for about a year, complain about the advice being given, refuse to heed any advice or even life a finger to actually see if it is possible, and then moan at everyone on the thread and accuse them of not reading the whole thread properly. Did I miss anything? Nope, don't think so.
Cue a blakeyrant about how I've not read the thread and how the OSS world sucks.
-
@boomzilla said:
Bullshit bullshit bullshit. It misses the point of supporting your particular situation. It's still useful, etc, to anyone using 4.0. And possibly to anyone using 3.5 who is able to compile source code (based on others' comments).
But no, you're probably right. Not supporting any of your users for life defeats the purpose of writing a library.
Jesus. Look, you're not fucking stupid, Boomzilla, ok? Stop acting fucking stupid to make your point. Because I've already posted why I consider this a WTF. If you don't agree, FINE! Don't agree! But also don't be fucking RETARDED on PURPOSE and pretend that I haven't posted my reasons. This thread is dumb piled on dumb, and all you've posted is pure concentrated dumb.
Tell you what, you give me the answer to these two questions, which no open source supporter so far has actually fucking answered because they all have their heads way up their asses:
What are the goals of the ideal library?
How does moving the library to .net 4 forward those goals?Now can you answer those two questions in a way that makes this situation not a WTF, or not? It's a pretty fucking simple task, and yet nobody in your camp has completed it.
@ASheridan said:
TheWTF seems to me that blakerat is ignoring any advice that is being given to fix it:
None of the advice given "fixes" the library. All of the advice given so far creates a new library that I'm then solely responsible for maintaining until the end of time. And I haven't been ignoring it, I just haven't been to work-- it's a fucking holiday weekend. And the handle's Blakeyrat.
-
@blakeyrat said:
But also don't be fucking RETARDED on PURPOSE and pretend that I haven't posted my reasons.
Dude, I'm not telepathic. I understand that you think it's a WTF, but you simply haven't convinced me. It's OK if you don't want to, but hey, you brought it up.
@blakeyrat said:
What are the goals of the ideal library?
How does moving the library to .net 4 forward those goals?Now can you answer those two questions in a way that makes this situation not a WTF, or not? It's a pretty fucking simple task, and yet nobody in your camp has completed it.
The ideal library, I suppose does exactly what I need it to, has no bugs and is well documented.
One of your criteria is .NET 3.5. Obviously, it's not everyone's, including the library author. But, if I were using .NET 4.0, then the library would need to be 4.0, I suppose. From some minimal looks at some differences, it looks like there were some handy upgrades to stuff between 3.5 and 4.0 that the author may have wanted to take advantage of. Or might require it.
Since most OSS comes into existence to scratch some itch, I imagine the author had some reason why moving the library to 4.0 made sense. Or, that's what most people are using. Anyways, most people interested in using Twitter APIs via .NET. After all, how can you be on top of the latest social networking while using old technology?
Your second question, and your attempt to tie it into the first, strikes me as TRWTF, for reasons I posted about before. I'm not going to go over them again, because you already signaled that you won't answer them, which makes you look like TRWTF even more. Sorry, but you just haven't made the case as to why a project with a single developer shouldn't update to the most recent version of the underlying technology which, after all, is over a year old.
-
@Renan said:
@esoterik said:
@blakeyrat said:@Renan said:
Explanation
tl;dr
The funny thing is that you sound like the typical .NET programmer.
Jesus. Look, you're not fucking stupid, Boomzilla, ok? Stop acting fucking stupid to make your point. Because I've already posted why I consider this a WTF. If you don't agree, FINE! Don't agree! But also don't be fucking RETARDED on PURPOSE and pretend that I haven't posted my reasons. This thread is dumb piled on dumb, and all you've posted is pure concentrated dumb.
Tell you what, you give me the answer to these two questions, which no open source supporter so far has actually fucking answered because they all have their heads way up their asses:
What are the goals of the ideal library?
How does moving the library to .net 4 forward those goals?Is directed or non-directed trolling more effective?
-
@blakeyrat said:
Now can you answer those two questions in a way that makes this situation not a WTF, or not? It's a pretty fucking simple task, and yet nobody in your camp has completed it.
Here's why nobody wants to answer your question: This isn't a WTF. This is the kind of problem I solve at 4am when I've run out of real problems to solve. On a day-to-day basis, this sort of "problem" doesn't even come up on my radar because it takes all of 30 seconds to "fix". Like many others, I've made the mistake of thinking you're an acolyte in need of help, when in fact you're an acolyte in need of a different career. If this is how you deal with what I'd consider an immeasurably small problem, you are going to crash and burn when faced with a real problem. And no, you haven't seen a real problem yet. So what suggest you do, is take however many years you've been programming, double it, then come back and answer your own questions and tell us what you've learned. Perhaps then you'll see why people are offering you help.
Go get 'em, tiger.
-
Visual Studio Professional Upgrade $549
And yes, there are many environments that create full fledged .NET applications without ever using Visual Studio at all. The SDK contains everything that is *needed*
-
@thecodes said:
Herp
Regardless of how easy the problem is to solve, it's still a WTF that the library writer purposefully broke compatibility with his client's projects, without even asking first.
@TheCPUWizard said:
Derp
Regardless of the cost of Visual Studio, it's still a WTF that the library writer purposefully broke compatibility with his client's projects, without even asking first.
If either of you want to actually address the actual WTF instead of offering excuses, feel free.
@thecodes said:
Here's why nobody wants to answer your question: This isn't a WTF.
I disagree; I think they don't want to answer it because answering it requires thinking about the actual goals of the software in a somewhat abstract manner, and most developers are incapable of doing that.
Despite being in an industry that basically relies on abstractions, I find that a lot of developers (on this forum at least) don't understand the word "ideal"... as in "what would this library look like in an ideal universe?" They just don't have whatever brain chemical allows imagining something that doesn't exist in reality. Which is super-ironic, as a bonus.
@thecodes said:
On a day-to-day basis, this sort of "problem" doesn't even come up on my radar because it takes all of 30 seconds to "fix".
I'd love to see how you came up with your 30 seconds estimate.
I dunno if you're a lurker, or just brand new here, or what, but if you've ever read my posting here, you'd know that one of my catchphrases is "nobody said this would be easy going in"-- when someone writes a bug into software and doesn't fix it because "it's too hard." (Especially applicable to web developers, who have a tendency to whine more than any other type of developer about how hard their job is, for whatever reason.) I'm not afraid of work, and I'm not afraid of taking hours to get something right.
The problem in this case is that this developer:
1) Made a website promoting this library as being complete, easy-to-use, well-supported (it honestly says "well-supported" right there on the homepage)
2) Then purposefully broke compatibility by changing the framework version.Maybe I'm a whiny infant. Fine. But I'm not the one that made his life harder for no reason, he made my life harder for no reason.
@thecodes said:
Like many others, I've made the mistake of thinking you're an acolyte in need of help, when in fact you're an acolyte in need of a different career.
I'm not an "acolyte" at all. WTF. Is that some kind of religious student where they teach how to diddle kids then cover it up?
No, I have this thing most developers don't have... it's called "imagination". Oh, and people don't post here to get help, that's a different forum-- I would have posted in it if I wanted PROTIPS.
I'm turning off tracking on this thread, so feel free to pile-on. I no longer care to read whatever moronic reply you'll come up with.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I'm turning off tracking on this thread, so feel free to pile-on. I no longer care to read whatever moronic reply you'll come up with.
Awh, and was going to agree with you....
Anyhow, I agree with blakey on this... the problem is that there is a problem, a dll should not do this.
-
What are the goals of the ideal library?
- write library
- ???
- profit (or get hot chicks)
Why do you have to support this "for the rest of your life" anyway? You planning on staying in one place forever? (having said that I actually understand your point.)
BTW, check this out and see if it would help you: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2009/08/27/multi-targeting-support-vs-2010-and-net-4-series.aspx
Or more likely this: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/204406/How-To-Use-a-NET-4-Based-DLL-From-NET-2-Based-Appl/?display=Mobile since it describes a variant of what should work for you (assuming you want to invest the time.)
-
Holy fish paste! The post had formatting when I wrote it.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I have a .net app. It uses an open source Twitter library.
So how's the work environment down there at the Museum of Incredibly Annoying Technologies?
@blakeyrat said:
Do they just not give a shit about all the .net 2 and 3.5 projects that use it?
Oh, they give a shit, in the sense that they care deeply about the fact that your money is not yet in their bank account.
@blakeyrat said:
Look, I trust Microsoft and all
How's that working out for you?
@blakeyrat said:
If you're a library writer, please, please stay at least one version behind the curve.
I don't think you have anything to worry about in my case. I've got enough sense to write my code in languages that don't leave me financially beholden to a bunch of weirdos with emotional problems.
@blakeyrat said:
Because of this bullshit, choosing to use this buggy-ass library has actually cost me MORE (both time and $$$) than writing the fucking code myself would have.
Protip: this is always what happens, if you're a real programmer. Libraries, vendor packages, etc. are for system administrators and other wannabes. When I'm interviewing programmers, one of the questions I ask is "what's your favorite reporting tool?" The correct answer is "stdio.h". (I also accept "gdi32.dll").
-
@bridget99 said:
@blakeyrat said:
I have a .net app. It uses an open source Twitter library.
So how's the work environment down there at the Museum of Incredibly Annoying Technologies?
@blakeyrat said:
Do they just not give a shit about all the .net 2 and 3.5 projects that use it?
Oh, they give a shit, in the sense that they care deeply about the fact that your money is not yet in their bank account.
@blakeyrat said:
Look, I trust Microsoft and all
How's that working out for you?
@blakeyrat said:
If you're a library writer, please, please stay at least one version behind the curve.
I don't think you have anything to worry about in my case. I've got enough sense to write my code in languages that don't leave me financially beholden to a bunch of weirdos with emotional problems.
@blakeyrat said:
Because of this bullshit, choosing to use this buggy-ass library has actually cost me MORE (both time and $$$) than writing the fucking code myself would have.
Protip: this is always what happens, if you're a real programmer. Libraries, vendor packages, etc. are for system administrators and other wannabes. When I'm interviewing programmers, one of the questions I ask is "what's your favorite reporting tool?" The correct answer is "stdio.h". (I also accept "gdi32.dll").
Fail troll is fail.
-
@DescentJS said:
@bridget99 said:
@blakeyrat said:
I have a .net app. It uses an open source Twitter library.
So how's the work environment down there at the Museum of Incredibly Annoying Technologies?
@blakeyrat said:
Do they just not give a shit about all the .net 2 and 3.5 projects that use it?
Oh, they give a shit, in the sense that they care deeply about the fact that your money is not yet in their bank account.
@blakeyrat said:
Look, I trust Microsoft and all
How's that working out for you?
@blakeyrat said:
If you're a library writer, please, please stay at least one version behind the curve.
I don't think you have anything to worry about in my case. I've got enough sense to write my code in languages that don't leave me financially beholden to a bunch of weirdos with emotional problems.
@blakeyrat said:
Because of this bullshit, choosing to use this buggy-ass library has actually cost me MORE (both time and $$$) than writing the fucking code myself would have.
Protip: this is always what happens, if you're a real programmer. Libraries, vendor packages, etc. are for system administrators and other wannabes. When I'm interviewing programmers, one of the questions I ask is "what's your favorite reporting tool?" The correct answer is "stdio.h". (I also accept "gdi32.dll").
Fail troll is fail.
Oh rly?
Meme meme is meme.
-
@bridget99 said:
@DescentJS said:
@bridget99 said:
@blakeyrat said:
I have a .net app. It uses an open source Twitter library.
So how's the work environment down there at the Museum of Incredibly Annoying Technologies?
@blakeyrat said:
Do they just not give a shit about all the .net 2 and 3.5 projects that use it?
Oh, they give a shit, in the sense that they care deeply about the fact that your money is not yet in their bank account.
@blakeyrat said:
Look, I trust Microsoft and all
How's that working out for you?
@blakeyrat said:
If you're a library writer, please, please stay at least one version behind the curve.
I don't think you have anything to worry about in my case. I've got enough sense to write my code in languages that don't leave me financially beholden to a bunch of weirdos with emotional problems.
@blakeyrat said:
Because of this bullshit, choosing to use this buggy-ass library has actually cost me MORE (both time and $$$) than writing the fucking code myself would have.
Protip: this is always what happens, if you're a real programmer. Libraries, vendor packages, etc. are for system administrators and other wannabes. When I'm interviewing programmers, one of the questions I ask is "what's your favorite reporting tool?" The correct answer is "stdio.h". (I also accept "gdi32.dll").
Fail troll is fail.
Oh rly?
Meme meme is meme.
"Meme meme is meme" is a meme. It's not the meme DescentJS was going for, but it is a meme.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@bridget99 said:
Meme meme is meme.
"Meme meme is meme" is a meme. It's not the meme DescentJS was going for, but it is a meme.
-
@Xyro said:
@Lorne Kates said:
@bridget99 said:
Meme meme is meme.
"Meme meme is meme" is a meme. It's not the meme DescentJS was going for, but it is a meme.
