3 ms·
If "clickbait" is writing enticing headlines, sure, I'm proud to be "guilty" of that, but the usual definition of clickbait is if the article contains no substa
by cnorthwood 8y ago
If "clickbait" is writing enticing headlines, sure, I'm proud to be "guilty" of that, but the usual definition of clickbait is if the article contains no substance. I hoped that timeline and reflections would add value though. If you want to write a blog post called "Why C# sucks" if you feel the language and ecosystem specifically enables that go ahead. I don't really understand your hostility here, and I'm sorry if you feel I wasted your time with the summary. I'll choose not to engage further with you at this point as I'm not finding your feedback constructive.
- zapzupnz 8y agoIt seems reasonably constructive to me. If I were to simplify what they're saying, with a nicer tone, it'd be "if you mean what you say, say what you mean". I like to think of academic journal articles in that regard: the title neatly summarises the abstract (which itself summarises the article), so there's as little ambiguity as possible. I have no opinion on the article either way, might just be something to sit at the back of one's head for next time. I get the feeling HN has two crowds: those who prefer newspaper-style articles and those who prefer academic journal-style articles. Difficult to find the happy medium (sic).