7 ms·
> 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 secti
by 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 agoDespite 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 agoWhen 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.