Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This all seems to rest on the assumption that more (drive-by, wooed by flashy logos) contributors => better software quality / functionality.

That's... quite a bold claim.

EDIT: And if you really want contributors, then maybe instead of building yet another logging or command parsing library with a cute mascot: contribute to and fix existing codebases, or discuss design and suggest changes to a standard library? There's plenty of existing communities of people that you can work with on a 'popular' library. If the target space is so crowded that what makes a difference is pure marketing, then maybe you don't need to make that space even more crowded in the first place...



Agreed. Reminded of a classic: "What one programmer can do in one month, two programmers can do in two months" - Fred Brooks


This is so true- especially in a flattened org structure, it can get tribal very quickly.

> maybe instead of building yet another logging or command parsing library with a cute mascot

I'll admit this got a hearty chuckle out of me.


No, but stars probably correspond to use or interest in your code.

I don't think people always want contributors. I've found you're much more likely to get people who make a mess of things than coding soulmates.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: