When she says it’s starting to feel like legacy software, I think she means parts of it seem to be falling into disrepair. Some things that once worked consistently and easily, like using the browser’s built-in search, no longer do.
The author’s made at a new tech breaking an old feature. Seems more to me like a “I wish they kept things the same” than “I wish they changed some stuff around here”. Quite the opposite of legacy.
It being the main point of the article bug being used incorrectly in the title is just confusing. That’s comparable to somebody always mentioning “wolf” in an article, actually describing a hare and never saying what their definition of a wolf is.
Sure, IMO github has had a subpar interface forever. I’ve always liked Gitlab’s interface more. Github has felt behind Gitlab for a while and it feels like the major thing they have going for themselves are Github Actions and marketshare. The interface getting worse is no issue to me as I try not to use it anyway.
It also doesn’t seem comprehensible to me that the author prefers Github’s blame interface over every git GUI they’ve used. They don’t even say what it is about the interface they find nicer.
I really like GitHub’s high contrast themes. But yeah, that’s it. I recently moved my code to Codeberg. Have you tried it? I like GitLab too. That was my go to back when GitHub didn’t offer free private repos.
Codeberg looks like a github clone from 2018 or so. I do hope that they take inspiration from other source forges and won’t be afraid to experiment to go their own way.
Techical terms with specific meanings don’t vary significantly based on context, because consistency is important in technical usage.
The author is complaining about how guthub is being poorly modernized, which is the opposite of legacy software. If she means ‘something we choose use out of tradition’ that isn’t what legacy software means.
Techical terms with specific meanings don’t vary significantly based on context
Every lexicographer I know would challenge that notion. (And I’ve had more than a few experiences in technical fields that challenge it as well.)
People sometimes express themselves using words that might not fit the discussed situation directly (at least not in the typical way), but do fit closely-associated experiences they’ve had. They use them because those are the words that come to mind at the time.
We could pedantically gatekeep their use of language and insist that their views/experiences are invalid because we don’t like their choice of words…
What a great point to make about language in situations that are not technical! Like how theory is used differently outside of scientific contexts, which is language naturally evolving.
But this is like someone trying to use the lay definition of theory, which is the equivalent of a hypothesis in acience, in a scientific context. A scientist saying “that is just a theory” to dismiss the theory of relativity in a scientific context would be rightfully corrected by their peers.
Using legacy software wrong is like using API to describe something other than an API.
When she says it’s starting to feel like legacy software, I think she means parts of it seem to be falling into disrepair. Some things that once worked consistently and easily, like using the browser’s built-in search, no longer do.
That isn’t what legacy means.
But you can still understand the gist of the article even if it used that word differently.
The author’s made at a new tech breaking an old feature. Seems more to me like a “I wish they kept things the same” than “I wish they changed some stuff around here”. Quite the opposite of legacy.
It being the main point of the article bug being used incorrectly in the title is just confusing. That’s comparable to somebody always mentioning “wolf” in an article, actually describing a hare and never saying what their definition of a wolf is.
Anti Commercial-AI license
I totally get what you’re saying, but wouldn’t you rather discuss the content of the article than argue about definitions?
Sure, IMO github has had a subpar interface forever. I’ve always liked Gitlab’s interface more. Github has felt behind Gitlab for a while and it feels like the major thing they have going for themselves are Github Actions and marketshare. The interface getting worse is no issue to me as I try not to use it anyway.
It also doesn’t seem comprehensible to me that the author prefers Github’s blame interface over every git GUI they’ve used. They don’t even say what it is about the interface they find nicer.
Anti Commercial-AI license
I really like GitHub’s high contrast themes. But yeah, that’s it. I recently moved my code to Codeberg. Have you tried it? I like GitLab too. That was my go to back when GitHub didn’t offer free private repos.
Codeberg looks like a github clone from 2018 or so. I do hope that they take inspiration from other source forges and won’t be afraid to experiment to go their own way.
Anti Commercial-AI license
The meaning of words often varies with context.
Techical terms with specific meanings don’t vary significantly based on context, because consistency is important in technical usage.
The author is complaining about how guthub is being poorly modernized, which is the opposite of legacy software. If she means ‘something we choose use out of tradition’ that isn’t what legacy software means.
Every lexicographer I know would challenge that notion. (And I’ve had more than a few experiences in technical fields that challenge it as well.)
People sometimes express themselves using words that might not fit the discussed situation directly (at least not in the typical way), but do fit closely-associated experiences they’ve had. They use them because those are the words that come to mind at the time.
We could pedantically gatekeep their use of language and insist that their views/experiences are invalid because we don’t like their choice of words…
…or we could try to understand them.
What a great point to make about language in situations that are not technical! Like how theory is used differently outside of scientific contexts, which is language naturally evolving.
But this is like someone trying to use the lay definition of theory, which is the equivalent of a hypothesis in acience, in a scientific context. A scientist saying “that is just a theory” to dismiss the theory of relativity in a scientific context would be rightfully corrected by their peers.
Using legacy software wrong is like using API to describe something other than an API.
You’ve made your opinion clear; restating it and slinging downvotes doesn’t help anyone. Good day.