|
|
|
|
|
by evantbyrne
763 days ago
|
|
I want to preface this by saying I don't have a dog in this fight. Not a big react fan in general although I write it for work, and have no opinions on specific routers or 3rd-party state libraries being better or worse than others. With that out of the way, where is the research showing that this is a good indicator of software reliability? Highly starred projects are left unfinished and abandoned all the time. The thread above goes into details about upgrade challenges. So it seems stars are maybe not such a good indicator of reliability. What about using a star to issue ratio? I've personally seen multiple projects with 10k+ stars that hide their bug reports in the discussions tab. Terraform has a much worse ratio, but would you describe it as much less reliable? Show me the research. |
|
While I'm unaware of research supporting stars/issue, it's a useful rule-of-thumb at the extremes. With React (318), if something isn't working, your code is almost certainly wrong. With Bun (24), if something isn't working, it's likely Bun (sorry, Jarred).
The assertion the Remix creators are "extremely hostile to anything resembling stability" should place Remix at the lowest extreme, but that isn't so.
If you use a metric or rule-of-thumb for evaluating reliability, I'm curious to hear it.