Ryan Gahl wrote: > How can anything related to a such a small little script library like > prototype and scriptaculous be viewed as a maintenance nightmare? I mean > we're talking about 6, 7 files tops, none of which are any larger than a > few hundred lines. So it takes all of 30 minutes, maybe an hour, to > incorporate the changes I need/want when a new release comes out, or > someone posts a nice addition that I want for my project. Hardly a > nightmare.
You're marginalizing the issue. prototype.js, alone, weighs in at 1781 lines and precious few of those are comments. Being conservative, let's estimate it at 1500 functional / code lines. Now, add in scriptaculous. >> Releasing code that changes "public" components >> (prototype / scriptaculous) without the intention of merging those >> changes back into the public component is doing everyone who adopts >> those changes a disservice > > Releasing code that offers new functionality at a cost of $0 to anyone > who wants to use it is doing everyone a HUGE service, no matter what way > you want to look at it. It would /truly/ be a cost of $0 (minus the developer's time, but that's already been donated) if the changes were merged back into prototype / scriptaculous proper. As it is, it's introducing maintenance time for /each/ person that adopted the changes. Spread out, the time is insignificant (you estimated your own time as 30 - 60 minutes). Add up the time spent by everyone, and it's not as efficient as merging the changes, is it? Todd -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. _______________________________________________ Rails-spinoffs mailing list Rails-spinoffs@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-spinoffs
