On Sunday, 9 September 2018 at 02:49:45 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 9/8/2018 4:29 AM, Josphe Brigmo wrote:
Um, I didn't say don't use Git!
I've done this manually before git. I can guarantee you that
the dates put in the file are invariably wrong, incomplete, or
non-existent.
But if you bring up a source file in github, and click on the
"Blame" button, it'll tell you, for every line in the source,
which PR last changed that line.
Yes, but if one has access to git then that is pointless.
Yes, dates go out of sync and are hard to maintain. THis is why
it takes a more complex system to cover those issues property.
One wouldn't just include the date but other meta information
that removes and reduces these problems that people complain
about.
If git would automatically do the dates then one could download
the source code. Git would be the central repository and if one
wanted an offline version that had enough info in it such as the
data a change was made, who changed it, the date the file was
generated etc, then it would be better than having nothing.
To throw the baby out with the bath water is wrong.
Special comments could be used so they could easily be removed if
desired along with any necessary information such as the library
version, dates the code was changed, etc. No need to include
everything. Some information is better than none, that is always
the case. Data(knowledge) can't hurt you, only the lack of it.
The thing is, none of this shit hurts anything. Comments don't
change programs so really it is just an issue about bloat and
rot. The rot is covered by git hub automatically generating all
the info(then it becomes no different than the problem of
versioning with everything, want an update, just download it from
git). The bloat is minimum and the bloat is precisely valid
information(it's not like it is gibberish).
So, for people to pretend that this is evil and shouldn't be done
just because they feel it is not as good as using git directly is
really moronic. What they are saying is "Because git hub has it
all we shouldn't go the extra step to provide partial
information". But the problem with such logic is git up is not
always available and not everyone wants to go that route. So,
instead of a compromise these people want to enforce some
absolute law that they imagined they can enforce(some people
murder over such things, just to show you how bad it can get).
It's one thing to say that it shouldn't be done because no one
thinks it's important(e.g., almost everyone uses git hub) and
quite a different thing to dictate some fictitious authoritative
dictator persona as if the dictator is god and knows everything.
30 years ago if asked most programmers about starting a git hub
they would laugh at you and tell you it is not needed. The sad
fact is that most people have no clue what is actually needed and
what is good and what is bad. They just follow the asses in front
of them, usually, eventually, over a cliff.
