4 ms·

You could have read the entire README in the time you spent posting something based off your assumptions.

junon 6y ago
I was commenting on the stuffed title. Not the content. That is why I specified that I had only read the title - because the comment was about the title. My point was your point - pretty much exactly. You just assumed malintent, which is a problem HN seems to have. If you want a title to be meaningful, stop stuffing it with words that don't accurately describe your tech. "Bastion - Developer-friendly actors in Rust" would be a simpler title that clearly explained exactly what the library aimed for, with the details in the readme. From that, I would be interested in exactly which guarantees the library provided. "Highly-Available" and "Fault-Tolerant" are the two most common of the three basic dist-sys principals chosen by projects (the third being netsplit tolerance, which is very rare compared to the number of other dist-sys technologies). Therefore, they tell me little. "Distributed" can mean a number of things by itself - concurrent programming, GPUs, etc. are all "distributable". Of course, though, it's a buzzword, and thus could mean just about anything here. A "runtime" when applied to a language usually means a standard or official supporting library runtime. You don't call ncurses a "runtime". To me, it meant that it took the Rust standard library and somehow made it "distributed", which made very little sense. So yes, I read only the title. And I had something to say about the title. Shoot me.
- andrewflnr 6y ago
  You don't know enough about the title to comment on it until you know what it's describing. All your questions would have had obvious answers if you had done so. All the terms you raised FUD about were in fact being used in perfectly appropriate ways. So no one had to assume anything about your motive to conclude that your comment had negative value.
  - spockz 6y ago
    The whole point that the first comment tried to make was that titles should be as precise, detailed, and concise as possible. Exactly for the reason so that you should not have to read the whole page to understand what the title was about. For me I had some of the same questions and “Bastion - an actor framework for Rust” would have covered the content as well. Take the comment as general advice on how to define titles instead of an attack and flagging it to oblivion.
    - andrewflnr 6y ago
      > “Bastion - an actor framework for Rust” This would have been less accurate and far less interesting. A title that somehow referenced the Erlang roots of the design might be an improvement, but without comparing to an existing project I don't see a better way to summarize the project's full value proposition than exactly the title we saw. But of course if you don't actually read the article you can't find that out. You're allowed to think the title is stupid and not read the article, but then don't come here and pretend your ignorance is insight. That's why the top level deserved to be flagged to oblivion, though FWIW I only would have downvoted.

I was commenting on the stuffed title. Not the content. That is why I specified that I had only read the title - because the comment was about the title. My point was your point - pretty much exactly. You just assumed malintent, which is a problem HN seems to have. If you want a title to be meaningful, stop stuffing it with words that don't accurately describe your tech. "Bastion - Developer-friendly actors in Rust" would be a simpler title that clearly explained exactly what the library aimed for, with the details in the readme. From that, I would be interested in exactly which guarantees the library provided. "Highly-Available" and "Fault-Tolerant" are the two most common of the three basic dist-sys principals chosen by projects (the third being netsplit tolerance, which is very rare compared to the number of other dist-sys technologies). Therefore, they tell me little. "Distributed" can mean a number of things by itself - concurrent programming, GPUs, etc. are all "distributable". Of course, though, it's a buzzword, and thus could mean just about anything here. A "runtime" when applied to a language usually means a standard or official supporting library runtime. You don't call ncurses a "runtime". To me, it meant that it took the Rust standard library and somehow made it "distributed", which made very little sense. So yes, I read only the title. And I had something to say about the title. Shoot me.

andrewflnr 6y ago
You don't know enough about the title to comment on it until you know what it's describing. All your questions would have had obvious answers if you had done so. All the terms you raised FUD about were in fact being used in perfectly appropriate ways. So no one had to assume anything about your motive to conclude that your comment had negative value.
- spockz 6y ago
  The whole point that the first comment tried to make was that titles should be as precise, detailed, and concise as possible. Exactly for the reason so that you should not have to read the whole page to understand what the title was about. For me I had some of the same questions and “Bastion - an actor framework for Rust” would have covered the content as well. Take the comment as general advice on how to define titles instead of an attack and flagging it to oblivion.
  - andrewflnr 6y ago
    > “Bastion - an actor framework for Rust” This would have been less accurate and far less interesting. A title that somehow referenced the Erlang roots of the design might be an improvement, but without comparing to an existing project I don't see a better way to summarize the project's full value proposition than exactly the title we saw. But of course if you don't actually read the article you can't find that out. You're allowed to think the title is stupid and not read the article, but then don't come here and pretend your ignorance is insight. That's why the top level deserved to be flagged to oblivion, though FWIW I only would have downvoted.