[ryanflorence]

> 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".

[triplezero000]

Always felt kind of scummy that the same guys maintaining this library - complete with frequent breaking changes - are selling training around React for 1.8k a pop.

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.

[ryanflorence]

We had breaking changes from 0.13 -> 1.0. We had no breaking changes from 1.0 -> 2.0. That's 2 years with no breaking changes.

Our workshops have $899 early bird tickets.

Every software company I've ever worked for sells training and consulting for their software.

[vmasto]

I'm sorry I fail to understand how this is different than tutoring, say, a coach who's developed a training program selling DVDs and also getting paid for personal training on his own program.

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.

[triplezero000]

False analogy - RR is a de-facto standard in the web development community, hence my comparison to a building code.

[vmasto]

No, RR is the de facto standard for the React community. And they're not doing training just on RR.

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)?

[tm33]

Ironically we typically spend less than 5% of a workshop talking about the router. So saying that we make breaking changes to sell tickets to our workshops is just naive. I can see how that's a gut reaction though, so no judgement on my end.