I might be wrong but that list is mostly libraries I think?
I agree that it is easy to implement a recent version in your own code, what I meant is that a lot of the tools/software you might want to use JSON Schema with (eg mongodb validation) only support old versions
OpenAPI 3.1 replaced the not-a-superset-or-subset of JSON Schema with the actual JSON Schema (latest version) over five years ago. No one should be using 3.0.x anymore. And 3.2 came out a few months ago, containing lots of features that have been in high demand (support for arbitrary HTTP methods, full expression of multipart and streaming messages, etc).
Many users are stuck at 3.0 or even Swagger 2.0 because the libraries they use refuse to support recent versions. Also OpenAPI is still not a strict superset because things like `discriminator` are still missing in JSON schema.
If you're building a brand new, multi-language, multi-platform system that uses advanced open-api features - you will get bitten by lack of support in 3.1 versions of tooling for features that already existed and work fine right now in 3.0 tool versions. Especially if you're using a schema-first workflow (which you should be). For example, $ref's to files across windows/linux/macos across multiple different language tools - java, .net, typescript, etc.
If you need (or just want) maximum compatibility across tools, platforms and languages - open-api 3.1 is still not viable, and isn't looking like it will be anytime soon.
The solution here is to demand support for the most recent specification version from your tooling vendors. We (the OpenAPI TSC) sometimes hear from vendors "we're not moving quickly to support the latest version because our users aren't asking for it." So it's a catch-22 unless you make your needs known.
> I can't remember a time where "keys %hash" returned the keys in a defined order.
It was never a _defined_ order, but before version 5.17.6 (November 2012), each hash returned its list of keys and values in a _consistent_ order between runtimes, so some code ended up getting written that depended on this ordering (say in a unit test, or a list that would get assigned into a database). The change was to make the ordering random/inconsistent/unpredictable every time the list was fetched, which as I recall did break some number of tests in CPAN modules and required new releases.
Well yes, he was a total dickhead to people who asked lazy questions and could not answer the follow-up questions that they were asked. He was strict about teaching people that it is important to be able to explain one's problem clearly and follow debugging instructions, and was ruthless with people who didn't get that. On the "help" irc channels we saw a continuous flood of lazy people wanting quick solutions to their coding homework and after a while anyone would become sick of it.
I didn't much enjoy it when I was at the other end of it though, and sometimes he went too far. "Try to understand why the person doesn't understand" wasn't something he did enough -- sometimes the person doesn't know the right questions to ask, they just know that their thing doesn't work.
As a helper, it's hard to find the right balance, and I think the most important thing is that if you're getting emotional about it, step away and let someone else take the question. (I at least have been getting better at this over time.)
I don't think lazy questions deserve ire. One always has the option of spending 10 seconds simply helping someone, instead of spending 30 seconds on insults. He invariably gave everyone the full 40 seconds.
Yeah he always had the option to just not answer, rather than shower verbal abuse at people and push them away from the community. I only visited one or two times and that was enough, same for my colleagues.
That makes sense if they're just visiting the channel sometimes. But I'm guessing they saw themselves as somewhat responsible for the community and quality of discussion in the channel, and then just walking away isn't really a solution.
Subjectively, I agree, but not everyone shares that perspective, otherwise you wouldn't continue to see the typical "Genius but angry FOSS developer" personality in various communities. No one wakes up in the morning and decides to be an asshole, obviously they think they're contributing/adding more than they destroy, hence the continued behavior.
In his bio he has the most succinct and accurate description of Perl that I've ever seen:
> Perl is a wonderful language once you get over the fact that a slightly quirky set of syntax and embedded regular expressions have a tendency to make it look like line noise in the wrong light. Once you're used to it, it's a hell of an expressive dynamically typed language with a huge set of libraries and classes available for it.
Matt was a child prodigy, and child prodigies have it notoriously tough. He and I worked closely for a while. There is someone else important in my life that has somewhat close to mst's intellectual gifts, and similarly to mst they also have difficulty controlling their reaction to other people. However, unlike this other person in my life, mst did know how to express accountability and had been on a learning process to deal with his limitations. Matt and I never had beef, perhaps because we recognised that our respective strengths and weaknesses were complementary.
My point was that 'child prodigy' was not loose flattery or exaggeration by a friend, because he was at 'has newspaper articles being written about him' levels of child prodigy and was unarguably a child prodigy.
I totally get it, some people found his mess very difficult and it could easily lead into a death spiral. Others had a very different experience. He was certainly someone needed to be managed by those who knew him well from time to time, when possible.
