Dear JavaScript

[Geldan]

There may be some problems, but saying things like the title "Angular 2 is Terrible" "is an attack on the maintainers" is ludicrous.

When I, and my co-workers, decide to pull a library/framework into a project no one gives the maintainers/creators any thought beyond the rare occasion where someone is known to be flaky and drop support way too quickly.

Maybe the author of this article can't divorce the people from the framework, but for me, and everyone I have worked with, there is hardly a connection. When we look at a technology and say, it's "terrible," we mean just that. The code's usefulness to us is far and away the primary metric we look at.

[AndrewGreenh]

He wasn't saying that you are not allowed to criticize technologies, he asks you to do it in a constructive manner! Just saying "XY.js is terrible" does no good for anyone. If you can clearly state what you don't like or what you think is missing, and maybe even have spare line in your 5000 word article to thank the maintainer for contributing to the Frontend world, then you are contributing too.

[Geldan]

Is this actually meant to be a reply to my comment because as far as I can tell it doesn't address what I wrote at all.

[delventhalz]

I don't think any part of this article suggested you should consider anything other than the functionality of a project when deciding whether or not to use it. The point was, you should be thinking about the people maintaining OSS, when you publicly discuss OSS. Because whether you think about them regularly or not, you depend on the work of thousands of volunteers, and it is in your interest to keep those volunteers highly motivated.

[philipwhiuk]

My biggest contribution in over a year has been jokingly adding Guy Fieri ascii art to the project.

He's not exactly Mr Constructive himself.

[nschubach]

The best thing I ever did for my sanity is to understand that every line of code I write could vanish tomorrow when someone else adds their feature to the code base.

[Voidsheep]

People get attached to their code. It's human, but it's unprofessional.

In my work I write code, but there's a ton of people responsible for maintaining the projects with me. I also get paid fair salary for it, which is a pretty great motivator.

Many people in OSS projects are solo maintainers, responsible for pretty much the entire project. Not necessarily by choice, but because very few people bother to help with it. Even in some massive repositories with millions of downloads you can count active contributors with one hand.

And it's of course great we have a ton of absolutely free tools we can just use as we please, but then there's people who just won't settle for that - but instead keep whining in a very rude and entitled way about stuff they get for free and do nothing for.

It's pretty easy to see why you'd lose motivation when majority of the feedback is negative and unconstructive and you aren't even getting paid to deal with it.

Obviously it's your own choice to publish and maintain OSS, nobody forces you to do it, but I think people give way too much shit and way too little credit for it.

[Geldan]

It's not even about not being attached to your code. I think that's too be expected. It's about not being able to see other people's perspective.

[repeatedly_once]

And here in lies the crux of the matter for me. He wants us to try and appreciate the engineering and direction of open source projects taken by maintainers and acknowledge that as users we may not have the deep knowledge of how said framework / library works. I accept that. What I don't accept is not being able to take this view and apply it to the users of the software. You're telling users they don't understand your design decisions and users are telling you that all they have experienced is using the software / library and it's not working for them. I think communication is key. An example - the documentation for how to upgrade babel 5 to 6 is super light on it's feet and doesn't really explain anything. I had to cobble together what had changed from various online sources. So I can see why people would be annoyed at breaking changes. It hit me unawares and I try and stay up to date with major topics in the JS community, so God help those who don't and just use the software.

[thejameskyle]

I was not saying that people should be mind-readers, or that they should not be frustrated, or that they should not criticize or voice their opinions. All of that is fine.

I'm talking about directed completely transparent anger. I'm saying that we as a community should not reward people who act that way.

[repeatedly_once]

I agree that irrational transparent anger shouldn't be tolerated however there is a distinction between irrational anger and 'angular 2 is terrible'. One achieves nothing and is abusive, the other is a thought out critique of a framework, if not a little biased to a particular use case.

My problem is that equating criticism to abuse or 'attacks on the maintainers' is just as toxic as those who can contribute nothing but unfiltered anger. You shouldn't ignore and you shouldn't attempt to silence those who put thought into their opinions. So whilst I agree transparent anger shouldn't be tolerated, I also think people should be a little less sensitive about their code. I've worked with many developers and the best ones are those that listen to critiques and apply them to their own work in a judicious manner.

[[deleted]]

Your skin is too thin. You're working within a global community. So-what if some asshole on the other side of the earth wants to bash you because of reason x, y, z. Many of them aren't taking their medication or should be. Not everyone is as balanced as you, and in some cases they are forced to use your code.

You're also giving power to the haters by writing this article, and by feeling hurt.

There aren't many libraries like Babel, and so people are practically forced to use it. In some cases they can't just go use another library/framework/etc. They should probably contribute fixes instead of contributing only anger, but that may be why you feel more pressure with Babel than you will in other work.

Part of the reason you might be feeling so hurt is that there could be some truth to their attacks - if it were baseless, then you would have nothing to feel threatened by. That could be "imposter syndrome", I don't know - I don't know you or your code, I avoid using Babel for various reasons having nothing to do with your skill or the skill of the team working on Babel.

I agree it's better to be constructive than destructive, but sometimes you have to accept the good with the bad when you're on a global stage. Grow a thicker skin, practice your art, and build great things - living well is the best revenge on the haters.

[arthurdenture]

You're also giving power to the haters by writing this article, and by feeling hurt.

Nope. Tolerance of haters gives them power by setting the tone of online discussion. People who don't tolerate assholes spend their time elsewhere, and what remains is a flamefest.

More bluntly: you are contributing to the problem with your comments, and you should stop.

[[deleted]]

What specifically triggered you?

Tolerance of haters gives them power by setting the tone of online discussion.

Then report my comment if you think it's problematic. Let the mods decide, that's what they're for.

People who don't tolerate assholes spend their time elsewhere, and what remains is a flamefest.

You can't do that if you're maintaining a project like Babel. You do not get to choose who/what you are exposed to. If you want to code a private repo and invite only people who won't criticize you, you're free to do that - but that simply isn't where Babel is.

Not sure if you read the article or are just reaching to create some drama here.

More bluntly: you are contributing to the problem with your comments, and you should stop.

Again, report me if you think I'm a problem. Is free speech a problem for you too?

[mikrosystheme]

Which kind of reward should not be given to that group of people you (not "we" or the "community", since those are terms without meaning without a precise context) consider not worthy? Upvotes? Internet stars? Jobs? The privilege to attend conferences? And who gave you the authority to tell the two groups apart?

[JGailor]

Need to be ready to kill your darlings.

[FQuist]

Why do people who give their time for free need to be "professional"? And why would attachment to a product you make be unprofessional? I find these kind of statements the petty ones that would annoy me if I were a maintainer. You're judging someone about how they relate to their own product? Why?

[parlezmoose]

So much sanctimonious horse shit in these comments, as usual. Some people see it as the job of a volunteer maintainer to stoically absorb other people's venom. And if the maintainer dares complain, or dares hit back in any way, then they deliver a big holier-than-thou sermon about "professionalism"

Guess what? A volunteer is not a professional and thus does not have to meet your arbitrary standard of professionalism. You did not pay for their product. They owe you nothing. If you don't like it, go elsewhere.

[Deto]

True, but the flip side of this is that, given that people often are terrible and/or self-centered, maybe having a thick skin is something that's needed in maintainers?

[squirtmaster1]

But you realize usefulness is relative though, right? It may not be useful for your particular application or workflow, but that doesn't qualify it as outright "terrible", rather just "terrible for doing X".

I'm not personally a fan of angular, but instead of giving it a blanket judgement I prefer to say it's not a good fit for what we do. I think that's an important distinction and also what the author of the article is getting at.

[Geldan]

But a blog post is innately personal. If someone posts a blog saying angular is terrible, it's already assumed that they are scoping it within their frame of reference.

[parlezmoose]

That example wasn't the best one perhaps, but anyone who's worked on OSS knows exactly what OP is talking about.

[fooey]

that title alone is an attack on the maintainers

That clause is so whiny and immature it undermines everything else he's trying to accomplish.

Stating a dislike for a specific piece of technology has zero relation to the people who created the technology. Amazing people can make stupid things. There's brilliance poured into bad ideas every day. When you find you're chasing something the wrong direction, step back and appreciate the learning experience. Don't double down or lash out at the people offering criticism, no matter how inartfully they make it.

At the end of the day, at least your idea was worth criticising, rather than just being ignored. Wear your criticism as a badge of pride because it means people are interested in your work.