> backcompat-breaking changes to React-Router
We had breaking changes from 0.13 to 1.0.
Then complete BC from 1.0 to 2.0
That's two years, one breaking upgrade.
Don't confuse a libs "changing API" with "people use the development branch as stable".
We had breaking changes from 0.13 to 1.0.
Then complete BC from 1.0 to 2.0
That's two years, one breaking upgrade.
Don't confuse a libs "changing API" with "people use the development branch as stable".
In other industries, we call this a "conflict of interest". "Same guys writing the building code for 2017 (featuring many changes from the 2015 code) are selling in-person workshops on the 2017 building code!" Take it out of the context of software and it immediately feels dirty.
This happens all the time, in many industries, where's the dirt?
Anyway, I'll take this chance to thank Ryan and Michael and Tim and Jimmy and others I forget for their hard work.
Claiming that because they made the most popular routing library for React it's shady to provide tutoring about it for profit is very much of a stretch in my book. Care to explain where exactly is the conflict of interest? Does that mean it's also shady to work as consultants? Where is the line drawn?
Do you really believe that noone is going to call them out if they started doing things deliberately to maximize profit (i.e. breaking changes without actual improvement, harder to understand than necessary APIs, etc)?
Our workshops have $899 early bird tickets.
Every software company I've ever worked for sells training and consulting for their software.