"Releasing buggy code is exactly how you find those bugs."
Why wouldn't testing prior to release be the better method? I'm genuinely curious to know your logic on this. It's inevitable that bugs will still occur after release, but why don't you think that as many as is feasibly possible should be eliminated prior to release?
its not black and white. Obviously some testing does occur, but the guy is suggesting no code shipments before the codebase is nearly bug free. I just dont believe thats the way to do it on an open protocol. Its not critical. If your shit is too buggy people can just switch clients.
To another buggy client? GTFO. That's just an ignorant thing to say at this point.
another junior dev from gitcitadel 😘
I'm not a dev.
I'm the village idiot. Thanks for bothering to stalk me. It makes me feel seen. 😍
jabs aside though, im replying to your note from a very decent client. Primal. Its not perfect, but its bringing me tons of value. Its my only social media client on my phone. If I hadnt been ready to deal with the bugs, I can jump to another client. If no other client is yet bug free enough, I'll be back for another round of nostr in 6 months where it likely will be less buggy and more features.
On the other hand, if Primal team had waited until the client was "production ready" then in nostr world the bug free version will be outdated. Who wins in that scenario?
Everyone. Better clients that work as expected are better for everyone. You think primal is great. Tell that to the dozens of people that have constant issues with it. Plus, it doesn't even support nsec bunkers for signing. That's a hard no from me.
sadly, I am one of those people who was having problems with Primal. It's just very very slow. 😔
