I don't think I could ever be this committed to a project where it's visibly fucking up the rest of my life. I would have decided this was not worth it a long time ago. I also would never have quit my job to maintain an open-source repo without any plan to support myself monetarily.
It does seem weird to get this upset about it when you have other (good) options. The issue is he's so hyperfixated on his project that he can't bear to let it go. The nature of FOSS is that it's meant to be collaborative and open. If it's really an open project, then you'd have PRs from developers running up against new issues. The fact that he's basically doing it all himself and being proactive and anticipating standards changes and stuff is voluntarily putting all that work on himself.
Presumably, if he abandoned it and things started to break, you'd see people realize how critical it is and more work from others to maintain it, or people would migrate. There's no reason this package has to be the package forever. Idk. This is weird.
Yeah. Sure. But on the flipside: a javascript library providing 10+ years of back- and forward-compatability with every different browser under the sun? Maintained by one guy? There's no way that's not a massively bloated piece of software that probably ought to be replaced anyway.
The market abhors a vacuum. Presumably no one stepped in because it wasn't broken enough yet, and there are competitors or replacements, as he mentioned in the post.
The other part of me wonders how much of a requirement continuing cutting-edge development is for this library. That just entails back-porting new JS features to engines that don't support them yet. I can see, like, back-porting common JS features that have been around for like ten years, which have worked their way into common usage, back to IE8. But for the new stuff ECMAScript is adding, the only thing is that it would be adding native support for features that are almost certainly covered in other packages. And if you have to use a library to ensure those features work anyway, it's the same thing.
I don’t think I could ever be this committed to a project where it’s visibly fucking up the rest of my life.
The way he describes is honestly sounds like someone with an addiction. The thought of leaving it behind must cause him serious pain if he's willing to take so much of it to keep the project going.
I don't think I could ever be this committed to a project where it's visibly fucking up the rest of my life. I would have decided this was not worth it a long time ago. I also would never have quit my job to maintain an open-source repo without any plan to support myself monetarily.
It does seem weird to get this upset about it when you have other (good) options. The issue is he's so hyperfixated on his project that he can't bear to let it go. The nature of FOSS is that it's meant to be collaborative and open. If it's really an open project, then you'd have PRs from developers running up against new issues. The fact that he's basically doing it all himself and being proactive and anticipating standards changes and stuff is voluntarily putting all that work on himself.
Presumably, if he abandoned it and things started to break, you'd see people realize how critical it is and more work from others to maintain it, or people would migrate. There's no reason this package has to be the package forever. Idk. This is weird.
deleted by creator
Yeah. Sure. But on the flipside: a javascript library providing 10+ years of back- and forward-compatability with every different browser under the sun? Maintained by one guy? There's no way that's not a massively bloated piece of software that probably ought to be replaced anyway.
The market abhors a vacuum. Presumably no one stepped in because it wasn't broken enough yet, and there are competitors or replacements, as he mentioned in the post.
The other part of me wonders how much of a requirement continuing cutting-edge development is for this library. That just entails back-porting new JS features to engines that don't support them yet. I can see, like, back-porting common JS features that have been around for like ten years, which have worked their way into common usage, back to IE8. But for the new stuff ECMAScript is adding, the only thing is that it would be adding native support for features that are almost certainly covered in other packages. And if you have to use a library to ensure those features work anyway, it's the same thing.
deleted by creator
The way he describes is honestly sounds like someone with an addiction. The thought of leaving it behind must cause him serious pain if he's willing to take so much of it to keep the project going.
deleted by creator