History does not repeat itself, except as a farce

Tuesday, Oct 25, 2005, 08:10

The following are offered without commentary.

David Heinemeier Hansson:

I can not fathom that Google would not merely repeat the mistake from round 1, but actually tweak the offering to increase the chances and scope of hurt?!

Someone, somewhere, please tell me this is not so. That we accidently got a bastard, mutant version of the GWA. That it’s not actually software that Google is allowing unknowing souls everywhere to download and rampage with.

Robert Sayre:

I can not fathom that Ruby On Rails would not merely repeat the mistake from round 1, but actually tweak the offering to increase the chances and scope of hurt?!

Someone, somewhere, please tell me this is not so. That we accidently got a bastard, mutant version of Ruby On Rails. That it’s not actually software that 37 Signals is allowing unknowing souls everywhere to download and rampage with.

David Megginson:

[T]he assumption that it’s always safe to follow a GET link is one of the basic pillars of the web. Initiating a potentially dangerous action in response to a GET request is on the same level as putting a “wings fall off” button on the arm of an airliner seat – sure, we’d prefer that the passenger not hit the button, but why is the button there in the first place?

Bill de hÓra:

So not only do we have people that do not read web specs when they need to, we seem to have people that read them at the wrong time to attempt to retroactively establish plausible deniability.

Perhaps it’s too inconvenient to follow Internet specs. Perhaps it’s easier to pretend to live in some kind of realtechnik psuedo-reality where specs don’t matter, than fix your work.

Mark Pilgrim:

Besides the run-of-the-mill morons, there are two factions of morons that are worth special mention. The first work from examples, and ship code, and get yelled at, just like all the other morons. But then when they finally bother to read the spec, they magically turn into assholes and argue that the spec is ambiguous, or misleading in some way, or ignoreable because nobody else implements it, or simply wrong. These people are called sociopaths. They will never write conformant code regardless of how good the spec is, so they can safely be ignored.