Old, unresolved, open bugs are an important characteristic of a healthy project. It means that there is far more interest in the project than people contributing to it with code can keep up with.
You also seem to be assuming that the same people who build new features can also fix your pet peeves. While there is an opportunity cost, agreed, it doesn't mean that
- the same people can do both
- it's actually worth doing both in the first place. The opportunity cost of trying to make software perfect is too enormous for anyone but NASA and the like.
edit: Well, looks like I've been hellbanned. Goodbye, Hacker News. It wasn't entirely nice knowing you.
Ah yes, the cognitive dissonance of an Apple fanboy developer who knows that C is far more important than anything SJ ever did yet can't reconcile that with their belief that SJ was god.
Shame on Hacker News's audience that the front page isn't filled up with Dennis stories right now.
Well, multiple versions of code being loaded means that there are fewer common pages to share across processes. However I think it is the right tradeoff to make.
I disagree, and I'm presenting as much evidence for it as you are (i.e. none). In which conference was Apple's finding published? Where can I download a PDF of the paper?
It's not just what he's saying, it's obvious objective fact. A device that I can't play around with and run my code on without paying my dues is merely a toy. I'm not universally opposed to toys -- my music player is an iPod nano, which is quite obviously a toy, but I'm not willing to support the toy-ification of general-purpose computing devices.
The service wouldn't give the browser elevated privileges. If you're worried about an update being compromised, then don't, since they're delivered over SSL and (I believe) are also signed separately.
I'm not reducing anything to anything. I'm saying that the default, natural, rational position is for ideas to be free, and that any deviation from that position should be sufficiently justified.
You also seem to be assuming that the same people who build new features can also fix your pet peeves. While there is an opportunity cost, agreed, it doesn't mean that
- the same people can do both
- it's actually worth doing both in the first place. The opportunity cost of trying to make software perfect is too enormous for anyone but NASA and the like.
edit: Well, looks like I've been hellbanned. Goodbye, Hacker News. It wasn't entirely nice knowing you.