3 ms·
> Please, let's not pretend we'd not benefit massively from richer tooling here. Absolutely nothing about this project or the way they went about building it s
by 59nadir 10y ago
> Please, let's not pretend we'd not benefit massively from richer tooling here.
Absolutely nothing about this project or the way they went about building it shows any tendency towards richer tooling. A web interface also does not inherently enable richer tooling. You could implement this non-line oriented protocol entirely without 500+ MB of JS and the interpretation of that data could obviously be done without it too.
Edit:
While I understand your rants all over these threads (it doesn't inherently have to be inefficient and bloated), you've picked a strange submission to take these fights in. The software in question is in fact bloated, not compliant and is really only an interface to aliases.
Also, I would add: The proof is in the pudding. You seem to have made this a personal crusade, so I would urge you to make a decent PoC with these ideas to show the world.
- KirinDave 10y ago> you've picked a strange submission to take these fights in. I don't see how that's germane. I didn't object to concrete references to the software (which is not as good as other submissions). I objected to knee-jerk silverbacking. > You seem to have made this a personal crusade, No, but I am so tired of people on HN mimicking the style of development we put together in the 80's and 90's because... well I have my opinions about this practice, but they're uncharitable. We'll leave it at that. There is a cult of terminals in our industry that has fundamentally missed why terminals were an effective interface and throw shade on anything that isn't a terminal, even when it's actually a refinement on the terminal concepts.