Ask HN: Is it worth releasing another open-source test coverage aggregator?
2 comments
Is the goal to build something and learn something from the experience, or try and build something with adoption in mind?
If the former, the answer to your question is always "yes": if there's something to learn and you're interested in that problem space, it's always worthwhile.
If you're looking at the latter, you're essentially building a product. The next question should then be "is there part of what's out there that you're confident you can do differently/better?"
If the former, the answer to your question is always "yes": if there's something to learn and you're interested in that problem space, it's always worthwhile.
If you're looking at the latter, you're essentially building a product. The next question should then be "is there part of what's out there that you're confident you can do differently/better?"
> Is the goal to build something and learn something from the experience, or try and build something with adoption in mind?
It's primarily to build for adoption, although I also wanted to take the opportunity to test out all sorts of AI-driven developments methods.
> is there part of what's out there that you're confident you can do differently/better?
I've seen a pain point in my team, but am unsure of how big it is. Hence why I'm asking here.
It's primarily to build for adoption, although I also wanted to take the opportunity to test out all sorts of AI-driven developments methods.
> is there part of what's out there that you're confident you can do differently/better?
I've seen a pain point in my team, but am unsure of how big it is. Hence why I'm asking here.
If not, I’m wondering if it’s worth releasing one; written in Go so it’s easy to run. Would people actually adopt it, even if it’s a bare-bones project that, say, only works for one or two languages (Python & JS)? I’m worried it’s not something teams care about, since they just default to a paid service that has more features.