4 ms·
...which still makes it a rewrite. :) Scott maybe respected but this particular article doesn’t add anything. The original is a much better read.
by pushpop 7y ago
...which still makes it a rewrite. :)
Scott maybe respected but this particular article doesn’t add anything. The original is a much better read.
- manigandham 7y agoThat's a disingenuous definition. Obviously the original is a "better" read because it's the full project being featured. Scott's article summarized and intro'd the project to people who never saw the original, including the person who posted it here on HN. That's adding quite a lot of value. Why are you so intent on putting down Scott's post?
- pushpop 7y agoI think there’s some bias going on here. Any other blog on any other subject and I’m sure you’d be the first to say “link to the original rather than the summary”. In fact people not linking to the original work is popular complaint on here. The fact this is Scott’s blog shouldn’t change anything and even you have agreed that the original is better. So why are you arguing as if it’s me who’s making this personal? Anyway, I’m glad you got something from it. I personally didn’t, which is why I made my initial post, but I did find the original source to be really well written and thought others might prefer that too.