5 ms·

They do have a way, and godoc.org uses it: go-source meta tags. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24024130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24024130

arp242 6y ago
That doesn't address the main meat of the comment, which said that your claims in the article are highly misleading.
- ddevault 6y ago
  I don't think that my claims are misleading.
  - arp242 6y ago
    You suggested many code hosting sites don't work, while in fact they do work except for some (IMHO minor, but we can perhaps disagree on that) features. You don't think that's not a full and accurate representation of the state of things?
    - ddevault 6y ago
      >they do work except Except being the key word here. My commentary is on the quality of their engineering approach and I have demonstrated that their approach is flawed. Their approach is wrong.
      - arp242 6y ago
        None of that is relevant; you can feel the Google engineering approach is the worst in the history of humanity – all fine with me – but ..... that does not mean you get be misleading about facts. You can – and should – state that one feature doesn't work; rather than say that none of it works. Because the former is true, and the latter is not. What is the goal of your post? To inform your readership, or to convince them that Google is bad? If it's the former, then you have done your readership a great disservice. If it's the latter – which seems to be the case – then congratulations: you've fooled your readship – or at least part of it – in to believing something that's not true.
        ddevault 6y ago
        My goal - my stated goal, that is - is to point out that the engineering approach is flawed. I don't have to explain the degree to which the feature is wrong in order to utilize the fact that it is wrong as a mark against the engineering approach. The approach is wrong, they were told, they didn't change it. End of story. And you've been misleading yourself: it's not a "single feature" - several features depend on this code. It is a second-class experience, and in ways that build upon other problems I've put into the article. Cut the bullshit, dude.
        akerl_ 6y ago
        Your post states that their approach is flawed in large part because it only works for sites which have been explicitly declared in the service’s config. Given how key that is to the case that the engineering approach is flawed, it seems very relevant that the majority of the service does work for any site, and there are specific features which require the site being included in the service config. There’s a big difference between requiring explicit site inclusion for full functionality and requiring inclusion for any functionality, and your post claims the latter.
        arp242 6y ago
        > I don't have to explain the degree to which the feature is wrong in order to utilize the fact that it is wrong Ehm, there is a massive difference between something not working at all and one feature not working. My car's headlights not working is not the same as my car not working. My laptop's trackpad not working is not the same as my laptop not working. > And you've been misleading yourself: it's not a "single feature" - several features depend on this code. I use pkg.go.dev almost daily (including for sr.ht repos on two occasions) and have never noticed this. It's fine to point out that there's a degraded feature-set and be angry about that (some people probably care about these features more than I do), but claiming that the entire thing isn't working is – and I feel like a broken record with this – just not true. It's just not. No matter what you say. This is easily fixed by just changing a few words. I don't get how anyone can defend this. If someone would point out such a thing on my own website I would drop everything and promptly fix it, no matter how strongly I believed in the main point I was making (and I have actually done so) as I want to be as accurate as I can reasonably be. You know, you actually inspired me to work on open source full-time last year? True story, that's what I do most days now, for almost a year to the day. This is what I wrote a year ago: > Drew DeVault’s sourcehut in particular was inspirational in actually making the step. If Drew can do it, then why not me? [..] I know it’s a risk and that there’s a decent chance this will fail. That’s okay. I’d rather take a chance to try to achieve a goal and fail instead of always playing it on safe. Not doing anything is also a decision – which you can regret just as much as any other – and the worst thing that can happen is that I lose some money and end up taking a job again. Doesn’t strike me as so bad, in the grand scheme of things. But with this like this – and this is not the first time I've seen you do it – you've lost a tremendous amount of respect. I don't care that you write rants (okay, it's not my preferred style, but whatever) but when you're being misleading and then defend that on account of "but my point was correct" then ... yeah nah... It's hard to be inspired by someone like that. I don't expect that you'll care a great deal, but just so you know regardless. Do with it what you will.

arp242 6y ago

That doesn't address the main meat of the comment, which said that your claims in the article are highly misleading.

ddevault 6y ago
I don't think that my claims are misleading.
- arp242 6y ago
  You suggested many code hosting sites don't work, while in fact they do work except for some (IMHO minor, but we can perhaps disagree on that) features. You don't think that's not a full and accurate representation of the state of things?
  - ddevault 6y ago
    >they do work except Except being the key word here. My commentary is on the quality of their engineering approach and I have demonstrated that their approach is flawed. Their approach is wrong.
    - arp242 6y ago
      None of that is relevant; you can feel the Google engineering approach is the worst in the history of humanity – all fine with me – but ..... that does not mean you get be misleading about facts. You can – and should – state that one feature doesn't work; rather than say that none of it works. Because the former is true, and the latter is not. What is the goal of your post? To inform your readership, or to convince them that Google is bad? If it's the former, then you have done your readership a great disservice. If it's the latter – which seems to be the case – then congratulations: you've fooled your readship – or at least part of it – in to believing something that's not true.
      - ddevault 6y ago
        My goal - my stated goal, that is - is to point out that the engineering approach is flawed. I don't have to explain the degree to which the feature is wrong in order to utilize the fact that it is wrong as a mark against the engineering approach. The approach is wrong, they were told, they didn't change it. End of story. And you've been misleading yourself: it's not a "single feature" - several features depend on this code. It is a second-class experience, and in ways that build upon other problems I've put into the article. Cut the bullshit, dude.
        akerl_ 6y ago
        Your post states that their approach is flawed in large part because it only works for sites which have been explicitly declared in the service’s config. Given how key that is to the case that the engineering approach is flawed, it seems very relevant that the majority of the service does work for any site, and there are specific features which require the site being included in the service config. There’s a big difference between requiring explicit site inclusion for full functionality and requiring inclusion for any functionality, and your post claims the latter.
        arp242 6y ago
        > I don't have to explain the degree to which the feature is wrong in order to utilize the fact that it is wrong Ehm, there is a massive difference between something not working at all and one feature not working. My car's headlights not working is not the same as my car not working. My laptop's trackpad not working is not the same as my laptop not working. > And you've been misleading yourself: it's not a "single feature" - several features depend on this code. I use pkg.go.dev almost daily (including for sr.ht repos on two occasions) and have never noticed this. It's fine to point out that there's a degraded feature-set and be angry about that (some people probably care about these features more than I do), but claiming that the entire thing isn't working is – and I feel like a broken record with this – just not true. It's just not. No matter what you say. This is easily fixed by just changing a few words. I don't get how anyone can defend this. If someone would point out such a thing on my own website I would drop everything and promptly fix it, no matter how strongly I believed in the main point I was making (and I have actually done so) as I want to be as accurate as I can reasonably be. You know, you actually inspired me to work on open source full-time last year? True story, that's what I do most days now, for almost a year to the day. This is what I wrote a year ago: > Drew DeVault’s sourcehut in particular was inspirational in actually making the step. If Drew can do it, then why not me? [..] I know it’s a risk and that there’s a decent chance this will fail. That’s okay. I’d rather take a chance to try to achieve a goal and fail instead of always playing it on safe. Not doing anything is also a decision – which you can regret just as much as any other – and the worst thing that can happen is that I lose some money and end up taking a job again. Doesn’t strike me as so bad, in the grand scheme of things. But with this like this – and this is not the first time I've seen you do it – you've lost a tremendous amount of respect. I don't care that you write rants (okay, it's not my preferred style, but whatever) but when you're being misleading and then defend that on account of "but my point was correct" then ... yeah nah... It's hard to be inspired by someone like that. I don't expect that you'll care a great deal, but just so you know regardless. Do with it what you will.