So in other words: bad design is justified by the notion that people shouldn't make mistakes. Praise the lord you don't design anything that can burn, irradiate or cut people.
I don’t think you should try to rephrase my words in your words, because in doing so you are completely misrepresenting what I said. So please, stick to just reading my words, and if you want to disagree with what I actually write, do that. What I said was:
If you want to say that you disagree with the choice as it was originally made, I agree with that too. Meaning, I disagree with the design. At no time did I say that this or any design was “justified.” That’s your word, not mine. So I think you should stick to espousing your opinions, not disagreeing with things I didn’t say.
I’m very clear that I don’t like the design and don’t use the feature myself. But as I posted elsewhere, I just think that it’s not correct to say that Rails has a security vulnerability and especially that Rails is vulnerable by default. Both of these expressions carry the false connotation that all rails apps are vulnerable and that the fix for the vulnerability lies in patching Rails, when in actuality Rails has a questionable design problem, and every developer has the power in their own hands to secure their application.
My issue is entirely with the nomenclature, not with whether I like or dislike mass assignment.
I'm not interested in your sophistry. You're saying it is not a vulnerability in rails, on the basis that it can be fixed by users. That's tantamount to justifying it, regardless of the degree. Rails is dead wrong here and I'm not interested in playing the "try to be right on the Internet" game with you.
It's not sophistry, the distinction raganwald is making is relevant.
However, even if it is not technically accurate, in the interest of getting the topic in front of as many Rails developers as possible, it's probably better to sweep that distinction under the rug and let them figure out for themselves whether it applies to them.
So your contention is that because something is "relevant" that prohibits the possibility of it being sophistic? The distinction is completely artificial. This bug in rails can be directly traced to recurring security problems. If that's not a vulnerability, then we speak a different dialect of English.
Ok, look, I actually think it is a vulnerability to most approximations which isn't what comes across in what I wrote.
That said, I don't think what raganwald was saying was sophistry at all. Sophistry implies an attempt to deceive. He was just being pedantic and a little narrow with his definition of vulnerability.
So when you say his argument sophistry, and then follow up with "... and I'm not interested in playing the "try to be right on the Internet" game with you." you're just lashing out. So that's probably why people (not me) where downvoting without replying.
I'm not interested in playing the "try to be right on the Internet" game with you.
Just as well, it seems that we agree on so much that focusing on where we are saying different things devolves into pedantry precisely because we agree on the important matters.
As I said elsewhere:
We probably agree that this feature should be taken out and shot, but are quibbling over which charge should be read off the indictment before giving the order to fire ;-)
By the way, this is the perfect example of modernistic trash-thought that focuses on details and not behaving usefully. You navel gaze over the "correct" usage and nitpick my argument instead of getting behind the position that is going to prevent harmful behaviour.
