4 ms·

Your comment is amusing but otherwise doesn't contradict the claims of parent. Probably better off on a thread discussing parent's tech. This thread is about th

Your comment is amusing but otherwise doesn't contradict the claims of parent. Probably better off on a thread discussing parent's tech. This thread is about the Dale language and its implementation. Surely you of all people would appreciate that both should be done with some quality, esp in implementation language. You didn't pick shoddy C++. You went with a language that you thought was better among a number of them. I haven't heard gripes about your code so far so maybe the style was OK, too. So, your parody is interesting but maybe counterproductive. It doesn't change the fact that the OP is already using language that isn't great for this in a way that doesn't inspire confidence. That's worth noting always as shitty implementations can lead to bugs for early adopters. Best to call out problems in parent's work in threads on that, a mailing list or repo if there is one, etc.

andrewchambers 10y ago
My code is certainly flawed, the question is if it behaves more or less as advertised. I would be more open to such criticism from users of the software. In my opinion that type of comment is worse than backseat driving, at least in that case the passenger is a stakeholder.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "In my opinion that type of comment is worse than backseat driving" By that logic, I'd have to lease a mainframe for millions of dollars before critiquing aspects of their offering. Likewise, I'd have to pay Oracle $70,000 per processor. If flawed FOSS, I'd have to go through the pain of setting up and using it instead of submitting the flaw. Your analogy would apply better if you said "person in back seat shouting about an obstacle they're about to hit to driver that fell asleep." Realistically, though, better to critique than use flawed products unless it gets the job done enough to be worth using anyway. No need to become a stakeholder.

andrewchambers 10y ago

My code is certainly flawed, the question is if it behaves more or less as advertised. I would be more open to such criticism from users of the software. In my opinion that type of comment is worse than backseat driving, at least in that case the passenger is a stakeholder.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"In my opinion that type of comment is worse than backseat driving" By that logic, I'd have to lease a mainframe for millions of dollars before critiquing aspects of their offering. Likewise, I'd have to pay Oracle $70,000 per processor. If flawed FOSS, I'd have to go through the pain of setting up and using it instead of submitting the flaw. Your analogy would apply better if you said "person in back seat shouting about an obstacle they're about to hit to driver that fell asleep." Realistically, though, better to critique than use flawed products unless it gets the job done enough to be worth using anyway. No need to become a stakeholder.