5 ms·

> Some people think that "the cloud" means that the instruction set doesn't matter. Develop at home, deploy in the cloud. > That's bullshit. If you develop on

by titzer 8y ago

> Some people think that "the cloud" means that the instruction set doesn't matter. Develop at home, deploy in the cloud. > That's bullshit. If you develop on x86, then you're going to want to deploy on x86, because you'll be able to run what you test "at home" (and by "at home" I don't mean literally in your home, but in your work environment). This is why having a compilation target that works the same way everywhere would be so valuable. We're some ways away from this, but I think WebAssembly offers hope here. As for the rest of the article, it'd be best if we could have a discussion style where people don't preemptively paint people who disagree with them, or who have a different perspective, strategy, or end goal, as "idiotic" and "stupid", or posit that people have a "total disconnect to reality." This is known as poisoning the well. It does not advance the discussion. In fact it is specifically designed to limit and stop the discussion. The reality is that it simply makes people angry and polarized, amps up the stakes, and ultimately leads to a toxic culture. Thankfully, I think HN has a better culture. Linus can do better, IMO.

jeremyjh 8y ago
> This is why having a compilation target that works the same way everywhere would be so valuable. We're some ways away from this, but I think WebAssembly offers hope here. Why does WebAssembly offer more hope than the JVM, or interpreted languages that we already have? It will still have to interop with native libraries to get work done.
- titzer 8y ago
  It's lower level than the JVM and more of an abstraction over hardware. So native libraries can be compiled directly into it, so everything can interop on top of Wasm.
  - rat9988 8y ago
    >>more of an abstraction over hardware Same can be said for jvm.
    - titzer 8y ago
      The jvm is explicitly designed to run the Java language. It has Java's type system baked into the bytecode. It is not an abstraction over hardware. (it doesn't even have unsigned comparisons :()
porpoisely 8y ago
I disagree. Let passionate people on all sides have their say. I think it's more toxic to stifle passionate people. It's amazing how everyone from Steve Jobs to Bill Gates to Linus Torvalds is labeled as "toxic" and yet the "toxic" environment they created led to substantial advancements. And poisoning the well ( or any ad hominem derivatives ) doesn't stop discussion, it generally leads to more discussions - though often times more contentious and off topic. And though I agree that it can make people angry, polarized and amp up the stakes, those aren't necessarily bad things. Most of the time, it is actually a good thing and a basis for competition. Finally, I'd say HN has a different culture, not necessarily better. Also, what you are doing could be viewed as a form of shaming and virtue signaling. And at the end of the day, if you don't like linus's style of communication, you don't have to read or listen to it. I don't understand the mentality of "I don't like it so you should change".
- titzer 8y ago
  > It's amazing how everyone from Steve Jobs to Bill Gates to Linus Torvalds is labeled as "toxic" To be clear, there is a difference between toxic people and toxic behaviors. The former, I think, doesn't exist. There are people who often engage in toxic behavior, and those who do rarely. Pointing out toxic behavior is the first step to correcting it. And correcting it is in fact the goal of community guidelines, in order to establish a more inclusive culture. > Let passionate people on all sides have their say. I think it's more toxic to stifle passionate people. Let's be clear about what "toxic" means, and not let it degenerate to "loud and I don't like it." Toxic means that it actively damages open discussion, drives people away, and kills off conversations. It is the same sense as a toxic substance; kills. > And poisoning the well ( or any ad hominem derivatives ) doesn't stop discussion, it generally leads to more discussions Ok this is manifestly untrue. Please read (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well). Poisoning the well is a form of preemptive insult to discourage opponents from taking a position by making it seem toxic. The fallacy is aptly named. > what you are doing could be viewed as a form of shaming Yep! I am happy to shame toxic behavior when it is clear. > and virtue signaling Maybe. I'd be happy to do it anonymously if you would prefer. > And at the end of the day, if you don't like linus's style of communication, you don't have to read or listen to it. This is the very definition of suppressing conversation: sending people away who don't feel like putting up with insults. It's counterproductive and unnecessary. > I don't understand the mentality of "I don't like it so you should change". This isn't some he-said she-said situation. I am pointing out direct unprovoked insults designed to stifle discussion and establish a particular point of view. As I have made it abundantly clear, I find this completely unnecessary and I pointed it out because I really think we can stop doing this if we're just consistent about it. We'll have better discussions with more diverse viewpoints, not just hotheads shouting at each other.

by titzer 8y ago

jeremyjh 8y ago

> This is why having a compilation target that works the same way everywhere would be so valuable. We're some ways away from this, but I think WebAssembly offers hope here. Why does WebAssembly offer more hope than the JVM, or interpreted languages that we already have? It will still have to interop with native libraries to get work done.

titzer 8y ago
It's lower level than the JVM and more of an abstraction over hardware. So native libraries can be compiled directly into it, so everything can interop on top of Wasm.
- rat9988 8y ago
  >>more of an abstraction over hardware Same can be said for jvm.
  - titzer 8y ago
    The jvm is explicitly designed to run the Java language. It has Java's type system baked into the bytecode. It is not an abstraction over hardware. (it doesn't even have unsigned comparisons :()

porpoisely 8y ago

I disagree. Let passionate people on all sides have their say. I think it's more toxic to stifle passionate people. It's amazing how everyone from Steve Jobs to Bill Gates to Linus Torvalds is labeled as "toxic" and yet the "toxic" environment they created led to substantial advancements. And poisoning the well ( or any ad hominem derivatives ) doesn't stop discussion, it generally leads to more discussions - though often times more contentious and off topic. And though I agree that it can make people angry, polarized and amp up the stakes, those aren't necessarily bad things. Most of the time, it is actually a good thing and a basis for competition. Finally, I'd say HN has a different culture, not necessarily better. Also, what you are doing could be viewed as a form of shaming and virtue signaling. And at the end of the day, if you don't like linus's style of communication, you don't have to read or listen to it. I don't understand the mentality of "I don't like it so you should change".

titzer 8y ago
> It's amazing how everyone from Steve Jobs to Bill Gates to Linus Torvalds is labeled as "toxic" To be clear, there is a difference between toxic people and toxic behaviors. The former, I think, doesn't exist. There are people who often engage in toxic behavior, and those who do rarely. Pointing out toxic behavior is the first step to correcting it. And correcting it is in fact the goal of community guidelines, in order to establish a more inclusive culture. > Let passionate people on all sides have their say. I think it's more toxic to stifle passionate people. Let's be clear about what "toxic" means, and not let it degenerate to "loud and I don't like it." Toxic means that it actively damages open discussion, drives people away, and kills off conversations. It is the same sense as a toxic substance; kills. > And poisoning the well ( or any ad hominem derivatives ) doesn't stop discussion, it generally leads to more discussions Ok this is manifestly untrue. Please read (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well). Poisoning the well is a form of preemptive insult to discourage opponents from taking a position by making it seem toxic. The fallacy is aptly named. > what you are doing could be viewed as a form of shaming Yep! I am happy to shame toxic behavior when it is clear. > and virtue signaling Maybe. I'd be happy to do it anonymously if you would prefer. > And at the end of the day, if you don't like linus's style of communication, you don't have to read or listen to it. This is the very definition of suppressing conversation: sending people away who don't feel like putting up with insults. It's counterproductive and unnecessary. > I don't understand the mentality of "I don't like it so you should change". This isn't some he-said she-said situation. I am pointing out direct unprovoked insults designed to stifle discussion and establish a particular point of view. As I have made it abundantly clear, I find this completely unnecessary and I pointed it out because I really think we can stop doing this if we're just consistent about it. We'll have better discussions with more diverse viewpoints, not just hotheads shouting at each other.