4 ms·

> The last-modified headers indicate that the front page and docs have not been updated since May 2018. This is not a viable platform and the analysis of Twitte

by peawee 6y ago

> The last-modified headers indicate that the front page and docs have not been updated since May 2018. This is not a viable platform and the analysis of Twitter's technical shortcomings is facile. The original 140 character limit, now doubled to 280 characters, was originally constrained by the SMS interface Twitter supported but ultimately imposes a preferred content style that distinguishes the microblogging experience. Your analysis of Blerg's analysis of Twitter's technical shortcomings is facile. It's a system that the author put together while intoxicated to poke fun at Twitter. Reading any more into it than that is at best highly unadvised. (Source: Used to live with Blerg's author)

sradman 6y ago
> It's a system that the author put together while intoxicated to poke fun at Twitter. The HN title is "a microblogging platform", the landing page has a section titled "But what's wrong with Twitter?", and the documentation has a "Design" [1] section. If the author intended to poke fun at Twitter as a stand-in for all microblogging platforms then leave out the engineering aspects and if the author intended to poke fun at Twitter engineering then land some technical blows. If the point of the exercise is to demonstrate how much code and documentation can be pumped out during a drinking binge then the author should state that upfront; that context is useful. [1] https://blerg.cc/doc/#design https://blerg.cc/doc/#design
- bytex64 6y ago
  Despite my ex-roommate's well-intentioned defense, I was probably sober for most of it. It was also a decade ago and I'm somewhat wiser now. As mentioned elsewhere, I learned a lot about making such bold claims to the Choir of Ultimate Pedants. But it was something I had fun with, and I think the world needs more of that. :)
  - sradman 6y ago
    When I see someone writing a database from scratch I search for the rationale and the core problem being addressed. The HN title is misleading and needs a date context which is obviously not your fault but comments attempting to provide the missing context should not be dismissed as pedantry either. If the context of a fun learning experiment was made clear on the landing-page and/or documentation then this thread could have been about architecture and programming which I think was what you wanted originally. I suspect the broken git repository didn't help matters. Overall a missed opportunity.

by peawee 6y ago

sradman 6y ago

> It's a system that the author put together while intoxicated to poke fun at Twitter. The HN title is "a microblogging platform", the landing page has a section titled "But what's wrong with Twitter?", and the documentation has a "Design" [1] section. If the author intended to poke fun at Twitter as a stand-in for all microblogging platforms then leave out the engineering aspects and if the author intended to poke fun at Twitter engineering then land some technical blows. If the point of the exercise is to demonstrate how much code and documentation can be pumped out during a drinking binge then the author should state that upfront; that context is useful. [1] https://blerg.cc/doc/#design https://blerg.cc/doc/#design

bytex64 6y ago
Despite my ex-roommate's well-intentioned defense, I was probably sober for most of it. It was also a decade ago and I'm somewhat wiser now. As mentioned elsewhere, I learned a lot about making such bold claims to the Choir of Ultimate Pedants. But it was something I had fun with, and I think the world needs more of that. :)
- sradman 6y ago
  When I see someone writing a database from scratch I search for the rationale and the core problem being addressed. The HN title is misleading and needs a date context which is obviously not your fault but comments attempting to provide the missing context should not be dismissed as pedantry either. If the context of a fun learning experiment was made clear on the landing-page and/or documentation then this thread could have been about architecture and programming which I think was what you wanted originally. I suspect the broken git repository didn't help matters. Overall a missed opportunity.