Hacker News Reader

Comment by nishs | Hacker News Reader

I think there are some lessons that can learned from this. For example, the command line:

  solana program close

didn't seem to sufficiently represent the destructive nature of the action.

The program's designers should likely have chosen the verb "shutdown", instead of "close".

View on HN

While it may not accurately represent what it does, "destroy" may be a better fit.

this is better

solana program lose-all-money

Even "irreversible_destroy"

A simple confirmation step with a relevant warning could possibly make developers think twice before proceeding.

From personal experience - no it won't. I have made mistakes with overriding warnings - when under pressure, hyper focused and already in the mental mode of - of course I am sure I want to do it - your slow brain is just shut down so you are moving a bit like on muscle memory.

Simply add a 1 hour unskippable countdown timer to the warning. Now you have to think about it.

If you have one hour you shouldn't be editing live anyway.

From the many depressing years I've done UX work I can promise you no amount of changes they make will protect users from their own mistakes. It is far better for your own sanity to accept people make mistakes. This is what development and staging environments are for.

Accepting that people make mistakes is one thing, but reducing those mistakes is another.

If it’s a simple change, why not do it? Though, I can see your point if the change is monumental but barely reduces rate of mistakes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com