One reason is that many developers work with package managers / languages that are INCAPABLE of handling multiple versions of the same dependency. Without this you quickly get version deadlocks without semver.
Another reason is that many developers are obsessing on getting the latest version of their dependencies for fear of security issues or just missing out on the latest and greatest - and they often completely ignore retesting the application since they now have someone to blame if it fails (that other developer should not have pushed the breaking change with a minor version bump!)
I agree with you that it should be the standard to have fixed versions and update your dependencies at a time of your choosing so that everything can get tested properly - but it seems to be an uphill battle.
> many developers are obsessing on getting the latest version of their dependencies for fear of security issues
Getting the latest version is how you get new vulnerabilities.
Various software distributors, including some Linux distros let software bake in for this reason and can be even faster than the upstreams in developing and applying patches to known vulnerabilities.
Also, unfixed but known vulnerabilities are less dangerous: security and system engineers can work around them, also IDS/IPS can detect and often block attacks.
This is exactly what I am looking for and I would probably buy it if I had some reassurance that it would actually work. Where is the docs? The sample code? Proof of concept apps that can be downloaded from app stores? Fine print for what is allowed in the different licenses?
With fine print I meant answer to questions like "what do I get in a commercial license that I do not get in a personal license?" as it is written it could mean that with a personal license you are not allowed to earn money from apps, or it could mean that it would only cover a single developer (then how many developers do I get for the commercial license?)
Also by actually reading that license it seems to contradict what you promise elsewhere, it says: "All fees shall be non-refundable".
Personal just means you are buying it with your own funds and not being reimbursed by a company. You are free to make paid apps with it. I'll work on language to clarify.
Thanks for pointing out the contradiction there. We may be going above and beyond what is required of us by the license, in the case of refunds. But we'll still do so.
Given the sometimes arbitrary nature of these rejections, it would seem that a natural strategy would be to keep trying (with changes to meet their expectations) - at some point you should get it approved.
Is there some maximum tries that one get to show ones worth as a pubilsher?
Because Tesla do not have the privilege of printing money like banks do. Banks do not directly loan out money from depositors, they keep that money and print(punch in numbers in a computer) 10x that amount for loaning out.
That is a powerful privilege and the reason why it is smart to partner with a bank, even if you have money to spare.
> Banks do not directly loan out money from depositors, they keep that money and print(punch in numbers in a computer) 10x that amount for loaning out.
No. Only central banks can create money by printing it.
An ordinary bank (commercial, S&L, or credit union) cannot loan out more money than they take in. That's why it's called "fractional reserve" banking -- i.e., a "fraction" of deposits is not loaned out, but is instead held in reserve.
The 10-fold expansion of the money supply is caused by the multiplier effect, not by banks printing money. The only way to avoid that is for the bank to make no loans at all. Any fraction -- whether 1/10 or 9/10 -- will still lead to a multiplier effect. It's just a matter of how large you want the multiple to be.
"And it gives people a chance to point out what I am misunderstanding and educate me, if they really think I've gotten it wrong."
Just a friendly note that this notion will cause you much grief.
I used to think that it was the best way to quickly get to the point and figure out what is what in the matter. What happens instead is that people will call you an imbecile and go off on tangents about subjects they have recently read a story about instead of addressing the core issues, of which they know less about.
In reality most people do not know much about these complex issues and you will not really learn anything by trying to make them educate you. They are not able to.
You will need to investigate the issues yourself, including reading a lot of literature by those you think are wrong. Eventually you will be able to understand where those opposing viewpoints are coming from and if you are lucky you will learn something that can adjust your own views and you will no longer have the "us vs them" feeling and instead think of it as "those who are wrong on this point and those who are wrong on this other point".
Getting to that place is impossible by imploring others to educate you. They will at best try to convert you, which is entirely different.
I mean, it's not my primary motivation in making comments, for other people to "educate me" in a broad sense.
I meant something more like, "If I happen to have misunderstood some particular concrete thing, people can provide a citation that shows the opposite."
Which, indeed, didn't happen this time. Instead, as you said, there was just a bunch of very high-level disagreement without any "meeting of the minds" on some important lower-level details.
Anyway, my real motivation for posting on the Chomsky stuff was because I feel compelled to call out truly evil pseudo-intellectuals, as I see them, when I see them. Chomsky advocates "anarcho-syndicalism," which is just low-level rule by gangs. He wants to dismantle civilization, which he preaches hatred for. To me, he is in the same moral standard as the intellectuals that came before and enabled the likes of Stalin and Hitler.
He is simply saying that you should not bring a lollipop to a knife fight. Verbal confrontation and physical confrontation are very different. Trying to educate your opponent might work in a discussion on the merits some technical issue but will only serve to further provoke that drunk guy in the bar that wants to smash your face in.
For some of us this lesson is hard to learn. But if we die because we did not learn it, it is the ultimate game over - you cant retry with a different perspective to win the argument, you lost. This changes the risk/reward scenario and being "nice" will not cut it. You will need to do everything in your power to prevent such irrevocable loss, including those things you would prefer not to do.
Another reason is that many developers are obsessing on getting the latest version of their dependencies for fear of security issues or just missing out on the latest and greatest - and they often completely ignore retesting the application since they now have someone to blame if it fails (that other developer should not have pushed the breaking change with a minor version bump!)
I agree with you that it should be the standard to have fixed versions and update your dependencies at a time of your choosing so that everything can get tested properly - but it seems to be an uphill battle.