7 ms·

OK, let's try again. I gave a correct summary of what I've learned from Goldberg and elsewhere. In a short comment. This article is "terrible" because it gives

by fargle 7y ago

OK, let's try again. I gave a correct summary of what I've learned from Goldberg and elsewhere. In a short comment. This article is "terrible" because it gives a single bad example and derides a very good reference implying it's too complicated. And steals it's title. Every programmer that uses floating point should read Goldberg. That blog post is garbage. Post the real source, or an informative article, not junk.

brazzy 7y ago
> I gave a correct summary of what I've learned from Goldberg and elsewhere. In a short comment. So did I on a small website (yes, I'm the author). It's a website. Not an article. Not a blog. There is more than the title page, which seems to be the only thing you've looked at. > This article is "terrible" because it gives a single bad example Which example? What makes it bad? > and derides a very good reference implying it's too complicated. I absolutely do not "deride" the Goldberg paper, and it is too complicated for people without a CS background. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the paper, or with those people. There is something wrong with kneejerk-posting a link to the paper as an RTFM to basic questions about floating point behaviour. My intention was to provide a better resource for those cases. > And steals it's title. Don't be ridiculous. I use the format of the title, which lots of people do (it's basically become a meme now, not sure if Goldberg was the first to use it either), with a critical difference that you seem to have missed: Goldberg adresses his paper to "every Computer Scientist", I address my website to "every programmer". Different audiences. > Every programmer that uses floating point should read Goldberg. Maybe. But it is not a good introduction. > That blog post is garbage. Post the real source, or an informative article, not junk. You have still not been able to explain what is wrong with it. I am beginning to think you have serious problems with reading comprehension.
- fargle 7y ago
  > So did I on a small website... I was responding to you saying that a comment in a forum that I made was "doing the same thing" as your small website. But it's not equivalent. I didn't make a website, not a paper. I didn't post it as a reference for the community. I am making, what I hope you understand, is a good faith critique. When the critique written in 3 minutes has as much technical merit (says you) as the "paper", that is not good. > "Which example?" Your using an example 0.1 + 0.2 != 0.3. This is nothing to do with floating point. This is an issue of choice of fraction base and an issue of precision that could affect any non-analog computation. > Don't be ridiculous You understand exactly what I mean. You replaced "Computer Scientist" with "Programmer". Borderline infringement, borderline plagiarism. > But it is not a good introduction So did you give one? No. You summarized a very famous paper and tweaked it's title. You provide no real advise for what to do. You provide no practical examples of real world code for "those programmers" that just want to know what to do. > Maybe. But it is not a good introduction... Why is it not good? I like that it puts the simple parts first and the formal math later, so you don't get bogged down in it. You're as welcome to your opinion as I am mine. > I absolutely do not "deride" the Goldberg paper. Yes you did. Let's say I said "Your website is oversimplified and difficult to navigate. It is garbage." Did I deride yours? [yes. yes i did.] > I am beginning to think you have serious problems with reading comprehension: I have serious problems comprehending a disorganized web page with a web 1.0 navigation panel instead of a properly formatted paper. > You have still not been able... See above: - Your example is borderline wrong. It's about a different subject. - "Programmers" is not a good title when your audience is "Computer Scientists" and "Software Engineers". - You changed the title in the HN post to obfuscate that you ripped off the original title. - There is zero creative, or new information presented. - The most valuable part is the "References" page. In which every single link contains more relevant and accessible information than your "site". - You aren't even linking to a definitive reference. But instead to an appendix of a user manual Instead of, for example: http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/jean-michel.muller/goldberg.pdf http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/jean-michel.muller/goldberg.pdf I think it'd be great stuff if: - you wrote a little blog - that introduced the goldberg paper gently - that augmented and highlighted the references. If they are a little complicated, then explain them. Don't imply "too complicated, you should skip". - that was able to be printed in a coherent format. Not 8 or 10 different individual web 1.0 frames. There's a reason academic papers are formatted the way they are. It's actually for precise communication. If you try to "simplify" and make things too much more "accessible" for regular "programmers", you may falsely believe you are helping. But this is a bad idea. Complex subjects do require some amount of concentration and work to understand. Floating point subtleties are not the lack of a zippy "programmer"-friendly website/blog away from that. You've tried to dumb-down a very introductory paper. It's amateurish and doesn't help. I appreciate the references. Wouldn't it have just been easier to add them to the Wikipedia article?
  - brazzy 7y ago
    >I am making, what I hope you understand, is a good faith critique. "terrible", "junk" and "garbage" is not a good faith critique. > When the critique written in 3 minutes has as much technical merit (says you) as the "paper", that is not good. Except It's not a "paper" either, it's a website, with multiple pages, with your "critique" being equivalent in content to maybe 1.5 of them. > Your using an example 0.1 + 0.2 != 0.3. This is nothing to do with floating point. This is an issue of choice of fraction base and an issue of precision that could affect any non-analog computation. I.e. it has everything to do with floating point. And it happens to be an example of exactly the kind of real, concrete problem that real people writing real programs encounter in the real world and then look for help with. > You understand exactly what I mean. You replaced "Computer Scientist" with "Programmer". Borderline infringement, borderline plagiarism. I understand that you have no fucking clue what the words "infringement" or "plagiarism" mean. There are now dozens of articles out there using that title format (and I would not be certain Goldberg was the first), just like there were dozens of articles using the "X considered harmful" format, and no sane person (and no lawyer either) would consider any of it "stealing", "infringement" or "plagiarism". > You summarized a very famous paper and tweaked it's title. You provide no real advise for what to do. You provide no practical examples of real world code for "those programmers" that just want to know what to do. What the flying FUCK? I very much do all of those things. How about you actually LOOK at the thing you criticize? > Why is it not good? I like that it puts the simple parts first and the formal math later It is still very much an academic paper and starts using formal math notation already when introducing floating point formats, and theorems two sections later, about 10% into the paper. The "simple parts" are already way too formal and too general for most of the people who get directed at it, and thus it fails to be helpful for them. > Yes you did. No, I did not. That is a lie. > Let's say I said "Your website is oversimplified and difficult to navigate. It is garbage." Did I deride yours? [yes. yes i did.] Yes, the word "garbage" is obviously derisive - and I used no such word to describe the paper. Unlike your example, I did not even criticize it explicitly. The worst thing I wrote was that it "didn’t seem to help with your problem" - notice the "seem"? > I have serious problems comprehending a disorganized web page with a web 1.0 navigation panel instead of a properly formatted paper. Well, that says more about you than about the website. Multiple other people have praised the website's clean design and usability. > - Your example is borderline wrong. It's about a different subject. Nonsense. It's an example of exactly the kind of problem people have and are looking for help with. > - "Programmers" is not a good title when your audience is "Computer Scientists" and "Software Engineers". My audience is programmers. People who don't think they're programmers can feel free to ignore it. Or is your problem that it's not ideal for "Computer Scientists" who also consider themselves programmers? So what? > - You changed the title in the HN post to obfuscate that you ripped off the original title. What a load of bullshit. The HN post of this comment thread was not made by me. The HN post I made in 2010 did in fact have the title format in question. And the idea that it was "obfuscated" is just plain idiotic any way you look at it. > There is zero creative, or new information presented. My main goal was not creativity or new information. > The most valuable part is the "References" page. In which every single link contains more relevant and accessible information than your "site". Says you. Pretty much everyone else seems to disagree. > You aren't even linking to a definitive reference. But instead to an appendix of a user manual Instead of, for example: http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/jean-michel.muller/goldberg.pdf http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/jean-michel.muller/goldberg.pdf Now you're just making a fool of yourself. It's exactly the same content. Your link is a scanned paper article with bad OCR that happens to lie around on some scientist's (very much web 1.0, I might add) site and might disappear at any time. > I think it'd be great stuff if: - you wrote a little blog - that introduced the goldberg paper gently - that augmented and highlighted the references. If they are a little complicated, then explain them. No, that would not be great. That would be an idiotic waste of time. The solution for a reference that is already too long and complex for the target audience's question is not to add more stuff to it! We're not doing literature analysis here! > Don't imply "too complicated, you should skip". That is not what I am implying (otherwise why would I list the references at all?). It's "too complicated for you right now, here's the basics, now go back there if you want more details". > that was able to be printed in a coherent format. Not 8 or 10 different individual web 1.0 frames. Format is always a matter of taste, but many people seem to like it. And you keep using > There's a reason academic papers are formatted the way they are. Yeah, and the biggest reason is that they are designed to be published in printed journals. > It's actually for precise communication. If you're seriously claiming that there is a fundamental difference between one long article with separate sections, and a webpage with an navigation index and some separate pages, then I really can't help you (but you need help). And you keep using that expression "web 1.0". It doesn't mean what you think it means. "frames" as well. You might want to inform yourself. > If you try to "simplify" and make things too much more "accessible" for regular "programmers", you may falsely believe you are helping. Many, people have in fact stated that my website helped them. So it seems you are provably wrong.

by fargle 7y ago

brazzy 7y ago

> I gave a correct summary of what I've learned from Goldberg and elsewhere. In a short comment. So did I on a small website (yes, I'm the author). It's a website. Not an article. Not a blog. There is more than the title page, which seems to be the only thing you've looked at. > This article is "terrible" because it gives a single bad example Which example? What makes it bad? > and derides a very good reference implying it's too complicated. I absolutely do not "deride" the Goldberg paper, and it is too complicated for people without a CS background. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the paper, or with those people. There is something wrong with kneejerk-posting a link to the paper as an RTFM to basic questions about floating point behaviour. My intention was to provide a better resource for those cases. > And steals it's title. Don't be ridiculous. I use the format of the title, which lots of people do (it's basically become a meme now, not sure if Goldberg was the first to use it either), with a critical difference that you seem to have missed: Goldberg adresses his paper to "every Computer Scientist", I address my website to "every programmer". Different audiences. > Every programmer that uses floating point should read Goldberg. Maybe. But it is not a good introduction. > That blog post is garbage. Post the real source, or an informative article, not junk. You have still not been able to explain what is wrong with it. I am beginning to think you have serious problems with reading comprehension.

fargle 7y ago
> So did I on a small website... I was responding to you saying that a comment in a forum that I made was "doing the same thing" as your small website. But it's not equivalent. I didn't make a website, not a paper. I didn't post it as a reference for the community. I am making, what I hope you understand, is a good faith critique. When the critique written in 3 minutes has as much technical merit (says you) as the "paper", that is not good. > "Which example?" Your using an example 0.1 + 0.2 != 0.3. This is nothing to do with floating point. This is an issue of choice of fraction base and an issue of precision that could affect any non-analog computation. > Don't be ridiculous You understand exactly what I mean. You replaced "Computer Scientist" with "Programmer". Borderline infringement, borderline plagiarism. > But it is not a good introduction So did you give one? No. You summarized a very famous paper and tweaked it's title. You provide no real advise for what to do. You provide no practical examples of real world code for "those programmers" that just want to know what to do. > Maybe. But it is not a good introduction... Why is it not good? I like that it puts the simple parts first and the formal math later, so you don't get bogged down in it. You're as welcome to your opinion as I am mine. > I absolutely do not "deride" the Goldberg paper. Yes you did. Let's say I said "Your website is oversimplified and difficult to navigate. It is garbage." Did I deride yours? [yes. yes i did.] > I am beginning to think you have serious problems with reading comprehension: I have serious problems comprehending a disorganized web page with a web 1.0 navigation panel instead of a properly formatted paper. > You have still not been able... See above: - Your example is borderline wrong. It's about a different subject. - "Programmers" is not a good title when your audience is "Computer Scientists" and "Software Engineers". - You changed the title in the HN post to obfuscate that you ripped off the original title. - There is zero creative, or new information presented. - The most valuable part is the "References" page. In which every single link contains more relevant and accessible information than your "site". - You aren't even linking to a definitive reference. But instead to an appendix of a user manual Instead of, for example: http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/jean-michel.muller/goldberg.pdf http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/jean-michel.muller/goldberg.pdf I think it'd be great stuff if: - you wrote a little blog - that introduced the goldberg paper gently - that augmented and highlighted the references. If they are a little complicated, then explain them. Don't imply "too complicated, you should skip". - that was able to be printed in a coherent format. Not 8 or 10 different individual web 1.0 frames. There's a reason academic papers are formatted the way they are. It's actually for precise communication. If you try to "simplify" and make things too much more "accessible" for regular "programmers", you may falsely believe you are helping. But this is a bad idea. Complex subjects do require some amount of concentration and work to understand. Floating point subtleties are not the lack of a zippy "programmer"-friendly website/blog away from that. You've tried to dumb-down a very introductory paper. It's amateurish and doesn't help. I appreciate the references. Wouldn't it have just been easier to add them to the Wikipedia article?
- brazzy 7y ago
  >I am making, what I hope you understand, is a good faith critique. "terrible", "junk" and "garbage" is not a good faith critique. > When the critique written in 3 minutes has as much technical merit (says you) as the "paper", that is not good. Except It's not a "paper" either, it's a website, with multiple pages, with your "critique" being equivalent in content to maybe 1.5 of them. > Your using an example 0.1 + 0.2 != 0.3. This is nothing to do with floating point. This is an issue of choice of fraction base and an issue of precision that could affect any non-analog computation. I.e. it has everything to do with floating point. And it happens to be an example of exactly the kind of real, concrete problem that real people writing real programs encounter in the real world and then look for help with. > You understand exactly what I mean. You replaced "Computer Scientist" with "Programmer". Borderline infringement, borderline plagiarism. I understand that you have no fucking clue what the words "infringement" or "plagiarism" mean. There are now dozens of articles out there using that title format (and I would not be certain Goldberg was the first), just like there were dozens of articles using the "X considered harmful" format, and no sane person (and no lawyer either) would consider any of it "stealing", "infringement" or "plagiarism". > You summarized a very famous paper and tweaked it's title. You provide no real advise for what to do. You provide no practical examples of real world code for "those programmers" that just want to know what to do. What the flying FUCK? I very much do all of those things. How about you actually LOOK at the thing you criticize? > Why is it not good? I like that it puts the simple parts first and the formal math later It is still very much an academic paper and starts using formal math notation already when introducing floating point formats, and theorems two sections later, about 10% into the paper. The "simple parts" are already way too formal and too general for most of the people who get directed at it, and thus it fails to be helpful for them. > Yes you did. No, I did not. That is a lie. > Let's say I said "Your website is oversimplified and difficult to navigate. It is garbage." Did I deride yours? [yes. yes i did.] Yes, the word "garbage" is obviously derisive - and I used no such word to describe the paper. Unlike your example, I did not even criticize it explicitly. The worst thing I wrote was that it "didn’t seem to help with your problem" - notice the "seem"? > I have serious problems comprehending a disorganized web page with a web 1.0 navigation panel instead of a properly formatted paper. Well, that says more about you than about the website. Multiple other people have praised the website's clean design and usability. > - Your example is borderline wrong. It's about a different subject. Nonsense. It's an example of exactly the kind of problem people have and are looking for help with. > - "Programmers" is not a good title when your audience is "Computer Scientists" and "Software Engineers". My audience is programmers. People who don't think they're programmers can feel free to ignore it. Or is your problem that it's not ideal for "Computer Scientists" who also consider themselves programmers? So what? > - You changed the title in the HN post to obfuscate that you ripped off the original title. What a load of bullshit. The HN post of this comment thread was not made by me. The HN post I made in 2010 did in fact have the title format in question. And the idea that it was "obfuscated" is just plain idiotic any way you look at it. > There is zero creative, or new information presented. My main goal was not creativity or new information. > The most valuable part is the "References" page. In which every single link contains more relevant and accessible information than your "site". Says you. Pretty much everyone else seems to disagree. > You aren't even linking to a definitive reference. But instead to an appendix of a user manual Instead of, for example: http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/jean-michel.muller/goldberg.pdf http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/jean-michel.muller/goldberg.pdf Now you're just making a fool of yourself. It's exactly the same content. Your link is a scanned paper article with bad OCR that happens to lie around on some scientist's (very much web 1.0, I might add) site and might disappear at any time. > I think it'd be great stuff if: - you wrote a little blog - that introduced the goldberg paper gently - that augmented and highlighted the references. If they are a little complicated, then explain them. No, that would not be great. That would be an idiotic waste of time. The solution for a reference that is already too long and complex for the target audience's question is not to add more stuff to it! We're not doing literature analysis here! > Don't imply "too complicated, you should skip". That is not what I am implying (otherwise why would I list the references at all?). It's "too complicated for you right now, here's the basics, now go back there if you want more details". > that was able to be printed in a coherent format. Not 8 or 10 different individual web 1.0 frames. Format is always a matter of taste, but many people seem to like it. And you keep using > There's a reason academic papers are formatted the way they are. Yeah, and the biggest reason is that they are designed to be published in printed journals. > It's actually for precise communication. If you're seriously claiming that there is a fundamental difference between one long article with separate sections, and a webpage with an navigation index and some separate pages, then I really can't help you (but you need help). And you keep using that expression "web 1.0". It doesn't mean what you think it means. "frames" as well. You might want to inform yourself. > If you try to "simplify" and make things too much more "accessible" for regular "programmers", you may falsely believe you are helping. Many, people have in fact stated that my website helped them. So it seems you are provably wrong.