3 ms·

I think you have misinterpreted the intended audience. It seems to me it's clearly intended as "hey, did you know this was a thing?" for a passing yet curious l

I think you have misinterpreted the intended audience. It seems to me it's clearly intended as "hey, did you know this was a thing?" for a passing yet curious layman. It rather briefly covers the main basics questions one might have after hearing first being exposed to this idea. What even is it? Computation. With fluid. Is it possible? Water jet example. Okay but seriously, is it practically possible? Parallelism, so sure. Is it useful? Venus. I don't see how the main point of this blog post could possibly be parallelism. It's mentioned, but in about as much detail as all of the other topics I listed above. The whole thing is also so simplistic that I don't see how it could possibly be targeted at people with actual knowledge - never mind experience - in the field.

Prcmaker 6y ago
I understand writing for an audience, yet at the same the article is painfully erratic in its contents. It reminds me of writing stories with my kid. We're going to the pool, by the way there's a dragon, and that's why I should stay up late tonight.
- foerbert 6y ago
  It didn't come across that way to me. I suspect familiarity with the topic is to blame here. As I mentioned, it basically went through and gave a short answer to all the first common questions you see in any discussion about a new technology. What is it? Does it work? Does it actually work in practice? What do you do with it? For somebody first exposed to the topic, that's kind of the basic starting point. The post kind of directly went from one answer to the next. As I was reading it the post felt pretty natural. But if you already know all that and are instead reading for more detailed knowledge, yeah I can see why that might seem particularly erratic. It was probably kind of like reading a Q&A without any of the Qs.
  - StanislavPetrov 6y ago
    I agree with your sentiment. As someone who was previously unaware of fluidic-based computing I found the article interesting, informative and well-written. Indeed, it has inspired me to look further into the subject.

Prcmaker 6y ago

I understand writing for an audience, yet at the same the article is painfully erratic in its contents. It reminds me of writing stories with my kid. We're going to the pool, by the way there's a dragon, and that's why I should stay up late tonight.

foerbert 6y ago
It didn't come across that way to me. I suspect familiarity with the topic is to blame here. As I mentioned, it basically went through and gave a short answer to all the first common questions you see in any discussion about a new technology. What is it? Does it work? Does it actually work in practice? What do you do with it? For somebody first exposed to the topic, that's kind of the basic starting point. The post kind of directly went from one answer to the next. As I was reading it the post felt pretty natural. But if you already know all that and are instead reading for more detailed knowledge, yeah I can see why that might seem particularly erratic. It was probably kind of like reading a Q&A without any of the Qs.
- StanislavPetrov 6y ago
  I agree with your sentiment. As someone who was previously unaware of fluidic-based computing I found the article interesting, informative and well-written. Indeed, it has inspired me to look further into the subject.