3 ms·

I think everybody who's spent any time in the industry will agree with the feeling to some level. That being said the "harfmul stuff" table is a prime example i

by simias 8y ago

I think everybody who's spent any time in the industry will agree with the feeling to some level. That being said the "harfmul stuff" table is a prime example in flamewar-bait, I seriously hope nobody will take it at face value. CVS better than SVN? Anything from plan9 instead of stuff people actually use? Good luck getting 9p to work reliably faster than NFS... Oh and you should use ed instead of vim, tcc instead of gcc and awk intead of ruby. If this table is not meant as pure bait then I think it's actually harmful on its own, an experienced dev will be able to pick the right tool for the right job on their own. On the other hand a beginner will be tempted to cargo cult it to seem hardcore without understanding the tradeoffs. Sometimes it's simpler to reuse a complex solution than write your own simple code from scratch. It's easier and simpler to use C++'s std::map than implement a red-black tree from scratch in C.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
> That being said the "harfmul stuff" table is a prime example in flamewar-bait Agreed. Especially with the GPL and LGPL, etc being "harmful". That seems like they're trying to evoke an emotional response. Sure, if there's different software I should use instead of $popular_X , I'm all ears. But be aware, there's context switching costs from going to one to another. And some software, even being worse, has better support by the community. Im going to flag this article, for your complaints. It's not constructive, and spawns flame-y yelling.
ainar-g 8y ago
>Good luck getting 9p to work reliably faster than NFS... Could you elaborate on that? From what I've heard (in my echo chamber), NFS is "complex, slow, and unreliable" while 9P2000 is "simple, fast, and reliable".
Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
>Good luck getting 9p to work reliably faster than NFS Fast != good. A slower system which works more reliably and elegantly is often (usually) a better choice. >awk intead of ruby I agree with this, though it's expressed poorly. For use-cases within the intersection of awk and ruby, use awk. For use-cases without, you probably shouldn't use ruby anyway. >It's easier and simpler to use C++'s std::map than implement a red-black tree from scratch in C. Easier, yes, simpler, no. When you use C++ you get all of the baggage that comes with it, increasing your complexity hugely.

by simias 8y ago

crankylinuxuser 8y ago

> That being said the "harfmul stuff" table is a prime example in flamewar-bait Agreed. Especially with the GPL and LGPL, etc being "harmful". That seems like they're trying to evoke an emotional response. Sure, if there's different software I should use instead of $popular_X , I'm all ears. But be aware, there's context switching costs from going to one to another. And some software, even being worse, has better support by the community. Im going to flag this article, for your complaints. It's not constructive, and spawns flame-y yelling.

ainar-g 8y ago

>Good luck getting 9p to work reliably faster than NFS... Could you elaborate on that? From what I've heard (in my echo chamber), NFS is "complex, slow, and unreliable" while 9P2000 is "simple, fast, and reliable".

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

>Good luck getting 9p to work reliably faster than NFS Fast != good. A slower system which works more reliably and elegantly is often (usually) a better choice. >awk intead of ruby I agree with this, though it's expressed poorly. For use-cases within the intersection of awk and ruby, use awk. For use-cases without, you probably shouldn't use ruby anyway. >It's easier and simpler to use C++'s std::map than implement a red-black tree from scratch in C. Easier, yes, simpler, no. When you use C++ you get all of the baggage that comes with it, increasing your complexity hugely.