5 ms·

Make Love, Not Flamewars

64 points by swah 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ivanbernat 15y ago
It's because we [developers] are highly opinionated people and [most of us] love to be "right". Some people have a hard time understanding other people might not think the same - and in cases when they don't know how to express their feelings - you get name calling.
- hello_moto 15y ago
  General truth right there sir. Maybe there is a correlation between developers and math? Since I'm guessing many developers might have a CS background that involves a lot of Math, Statistics, Physics, and of course Programming. These subjects require people to answer things correctly hence subconsciously create a habit of being "right".
  - zbyszek 15y ago
    You are probably right, and it's odd because if I've learnt anything from my time in science research, it's that science isn't like your school homework or undergraduate exams where there is a right answer. I find the notion that there is some absolute Truth which science expounds not to be useful. A useful thing is to be less wrong and to have a good handle for all the ways in which one might be through assumptions, approximations, systematic uncertainties and so on. The wider relevance of all this is the recognition that technical decisions involve some sort of trade-off and are not necessarily the end of the story. In science it's a healthy thing to have different approaches or formalisms because it gives some confidence in the results if they agree. I don't know if that has any wider relevance.
- m_eiman 15y ago
  The need to be "right" applies to most people. It's why we have fashion, MTV (or whatever the kids are watching these days!) and so on. It's also why it's important to reach that critical mass where you no longer need to convince people to use your stuff: once you're there the rest will convince themselves.
- thibaut_barrere 15y ago
  It's more fear (of loosing your job, of being outdated) than opinion. Obviously, learning new things is much more efficient to keep a job :)
Joakal 15y ago
I like to think that promoting what you currently use gains more traction for what you use in terms of; community, documentation, features, demand, etc. Applies to all languages and software. But yeah, the immaturity with using fallacies (especially ad hominem) to argue puts me off and it doesn't help with the general community votes for it. Some links for those who wish to know how to debate like an intellectual: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
krosaen 15y ago
Well, saying "I love mercurial" without some mention of why you aren't using git, which is more popular, will seem like an incomplete argument. Not using what most others are using has drawbacks, so some justification is needed. But it is true that spending too much time promoting something in terms of its competition can weaken the argument. A tough road for the underdog; try explaining why you are excited about android tablets without mentioning the ipad 2 :) FWIW I love hg and android.
- jarin 15y ago
  > FWIW I love hg and android. You didn't explain why.
- hvs 15y ago
  Not using what most others are using has drawbacks, so some justification is needed. This is only true in the open source world and then only in one corner of it. Subversion is still, by far, the most used version control system in the enterprise. And why should someone have to argue why they aren't using git? If he loves Mercurial, great! He doesn't have to explain why he doesn't use every other version control system in existence.
  - krosaen 15y ago
    Good question. I think git is so relevant to the mercurial argument since it is distributed, so if you are saying why you love mercurial, at least acknowledging git will strengthen your argument, as it is the most popular DCVS. Without that mention, readers might falsely think you are uninformed and haven't heard of or tried git.
- brown9-2 15y ago
  It seems unfair to start your argument from the position that git is the default choice and anyone who isn't using it should explain why.
- raganwald 15y ago
  saying "I love mercurial" without some mention of why you aren't using git, which is more popular, will seem like an incomplete argument. That's the point. When you say why you love Hg without saying why you aren't using git, you aren't arguing. The author isn't explaining how to argue more civilly, he's explaining how to make a perfectly valid statement without getting into an argument. Example: I love riding a hard tail MTB. Most riders will ask why I don't want full suspension. But I'm not arguing about why a hard tail is better. I'm explaining that I love riding a hard tail.
Confusion 15y ago
That won't make a lick of difference. Any statement of the form 'X is great, because ...' or 'I like X, because ...' will be interpreted by a bunch of people as 'He means Y, which I love, is not great and is lesser than X. Otherwise, he would be using Y. He must obviously think it sucks, which shows what an idiot he is'. And the stage is set. People can't help themselves. They want to defend their choices, even when their choices aren't under scrutiny. They will follow up with a fallacy or two and they start arguing from positions that are so ludicrous that even with the best initial intentions you forget to point out the fallacies they must obviously have committed to arrive at their starting point and just start refuting them. That way, they suck you in. Only if there are sufficiently many people in a community resistant to this kind of trolling, pointing it out to each other and refraining from feeding the trolls, only then can sensible discussion come about. But it's hard not to get sucked in. It reminds me of David Foster Wallace's speech about being aware of the water that you are in: it's hard work and requires an amount of self-awareness that can be exhausting.
- raganwald 15y ago
  That won't make a lick of difference. Any statement of the form 'X is great, because ...' or 'I like X, because ...' will be interpreted by a bunch of people as 'He means Y, which I love, is not great and is lesser than X. Otherwise, he would be using Y. He must obviously think it sucks, which shows what an idiot he is'. And the stage is set. Nobody forces you to pander to these people's neuroses. You are not the troll whisperer. This over here is my favourite interview question. That over there is my favourite line of Ruby code. This is my favourite book. I wrote blog posts about all of these subjects and attracted exactly the responses you describe. But I was happiest when I ignored the people who had an agenda of arguing about their favourite interview question or their favoruite line of code or their favourite book. Nobody compels you to play their game. So don't.
  - Troll_Whisperer 15y ago
    By choosing a favorite, you cannot help but choose an infinitude of not-favorites. With a high-traffic blog such as yours, it's near certain that some people will believe you've shown yourself to be an idiot by missing a superior choice. Neuroses may be at work in some cases, but it's arrogant to assume that all who disagree with you are neurotic.
krosaen 15y ago
relevant: how to disagree: """ After he has said, "I understand but I disagree," he can make the following remarks to the author: (1) "You are uninformed"; (2) "You Are misinformed"; (3) "You are illogical - your reasoning is not cogent"; (4) "Your analysis is incomplete." """ http://books.google.com/books?id=Z5PpkQadm5EC&lpg=PA154&vq=disagree&pg=PA156#v=onepage&q=i%20understand%20but%20i%20disagree&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Z5PpkQadm5EC&lpg=PA154&... With this in mind, I think saying "I love mercurial" without at least referencing git, the more popular DCVS, will be less convincing since anyone can say, "Your analysis is incomplete - haven't you tried the most popular DCVS?"
- mmatants 15y ago
  I agree: the issue with "I love X" as a pure statement is that it has nothing to do with why we argue on the Internet. Debating a topic is supposed to enrich us on that subject. I have changed my opinion on things before, based on Slashdot comments (this was way back), and now based on HN comments. Of course, there is also the need to portray ourselves as clever. That's the real driver for flamewars: sophistry. But saying "I love X" does nothing for either cause. People interested in rational decision-making are not engaged; trolls are not discouraged; and newbies are not educated on how to argue better. (edit: fixed a run-on sentence)
sebastianconcpt 15y ago
Relevant, focus on the positive outcome instead of a stupid futile private little war that only distracts people from doing great work with whichever freaking tool they needed to use in order to achieve it.
sitkack 15y ago
I am utterly offended, DOS is awesome. Esp for embedded devices where the OS and the application are the same thing. Less complexity leads to more stability. Flame wars are the most virulent when the enemy is extremely close to your position but doesn't take it. Emacs and VIM, essentially the same. Mercurial and GIT, again, the same. If the differences are too far apart the whole argument becomes, meh. meh.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- gecko 15y ago
  Fair enough, so let me remind anyone who wants a very thin OS for embedded x86 applications that FreeDOS (http://www.freedos.org/ http://www.freedos.org/) is a great DOS for the purpose.
  - wtracy 15y ago
    Where's the love for eCos? </troll>
  - sitkack 15y ago
    Although I haven't used it, there is a version of Python for DOS, http://www.caddit.net/pythond/downloads.php http://www.caddit.net/pythond/downloads.php but Lua might be a better choice.
thyrsus 15y ago
Apparently there are many good arguments for Mercurial, and many bad arguments for mercurial. The author says: "These questions matter. And they’ve been answered, very eloquently, many times." I've used CVS, svn, bzr, and git - I'm still a newbie on those last two and therefore persuadable - so where do I read these Hg answers? Seriously, I'm not doubting that they exist, but I'm getting the impression that google results will be polluted, and I'm not sure even the most beatific tweet stream is going to pull me in; but I will peruse the tweet recommended http://hginit.com/ http://hginit.com/ Seriously, where are the issues carefully explained and addressed?
dkarl 15y ago
I have a solution. Instead of talking about why you are better than the other guy, let’s focus purely on why your system of choice rocks. That’s it. Nice diagnosis; useless solution. Tool quality is relative. Fast, easy, safe, these are relative terms. Take me back to 1995, and CVS would be my best friend. Repositories rarely get corrupted, and when they do, they're easy to fix! For 1995 values of "rarely" and "easy", at least. Standards are different now because better competitors have emerged.

64 points by swah 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

It's because we [developers] are highly opinionated people and [most of us] love to be "right". Some people have a hard time understanding other people might not think the same - and in cases when they don't know how to express their feelings - you get name calling.

hello_moto 15y ago
General truth right there sir. Maybe there is a correlation between developers and math? Since I'm guessing many developers might have a CS background that involves a lot of Math, Statistics, Physics, and of course Programming. These subjects require people to answer things correctly hence subconsciously create a habit of being "right".
- zbyszek 15y ago
  You are probably right, and it's odd because if I've learnt anything from my time in science research, it's that science isn't like your school homework or undergraduate exams where there is a right answer. I find the notion that there is some absolute Truth which science expounds not to be useful. A useful thing is to be less wrong and to have a good handle for all the ways in which one might be through assumptions, approximations, systematic uncertainties and so on. The wider relevance of all this is the recognition that technical decisions involve some sort of trade-off and are not necessarily the end of the story. In science it's a healthy thing to have different approaches or formalisms because it gives some confidence in the results if they agree. I don't know if that has any wider relevance.
m_eiman 15y ago
The need to be "right" applies to most people. It's why we have fashion, MTV (or whatever the kids are watching these days!) and so on. It's also why it's important to reach that critical mass where you no longer need to convince people to use your stuff: once you're there the rest will convince themselves.
thibaut_barrere 15y ago
It's more fear (of loosing your job, of being outdated) than opinion. Obviously, learning new things is much more efficient to keep a job :)

Joakal 15y ago

I like to think that promoting what you currently use gains more traction for what you use in terms of; community, documentation, features, demand, etc. Applies to all languages and software. But yeah, the immaturity with using fallacies (especially ad hominem) to argue puts me off and it doesn't help with the general community votes for it. Some links for those who wish to know how to debate like an intellectual: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/taxonomy.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

krosaen 15y ago

Well, saying "I love mercurial" without some mention of why you aren't using git, which is more popular, will seem like an incomplete argument. Not using what most others are using has drawbacks, so some justification is needed. But it is true that spending too much time promoting something in terms of its competition can weaken the argument. A tough road for the underdog; try explaining why you are excited about android tablets without mentioning the ipad 2 :) FWIW I love hg and android.

jarin 15y ago
> FWIW I love hg and android. You didn't explain why.
hvs 15y ago
Not using what most others are using has drawbacks, so some justification is needed. This is only true in the open source world and then only in one corner of it. Subversion is still, by far, the most used version control system in the enterprise. And why should someone have to argue why they aren't using git? If he loves Mercurial, great! He doesn't have to explain why he doesn't use every other version control system in existence.
- krosaen 15y ago
  Good question. I think git is so relevant to the mercurial argument since it is distributed, so if you are saying why you love mercurial, at least acknowledging git will strengthen your argument, as it is the most popular DCVS. Without that mention, readers might falsely think you are uninformed and haven't heard of or tried git.
brown9-2 15y ago
It seems unfair to start your argument from the position that git is the default choice and anyone who isn't using it should explain why.
raganwald 15y ago
saying "I love mercurial" without some mention of why you aren't using git, which is more popular, will seem like an incomplete argument. That's the point. When you say why you love Hg without saying why you aren't using git, you aren't arguing. The author isn't explaining how to argue more civilly, he's explaining how to make a perfectly valid statement without getting into an argument. Example: I love riding a hard tail MTB. Most riders will ask why I don't want full suspension. But I'm not arguing about why a hard tail is better. I'm explaining that I love riding a hard tail.

Confusion 15y ago

That won't make a lick of difference. Any statement of the form 'X is great, because ...' or 'I like X, because ...' will be interpreted by a bunch of people as 'He means Y, which I love, is not great and is lesser than X. Otherwise, he would be using Y. He must obviously think it sucks, which shows what an idiot he is'. And the stage is set. People can't help themselves. They want to defend their choices, even when their choices aren't under scrutiny. They will follow up with a fallacy or two and they start arguing from positions that are so ludicrous that even with the best initial intentions you forget to point out the fallacies they must obviously have committed to arrive at their starting point and just start refuting them. That way, they suck you in. Only if there are sufficiently many people in a community resistant to this kind of trolling, pointing it out to each other and refraining from feeding the trolls, only then can sensible discussion come about. But it's hard not to get sucked in. It reminds me of David Foster Wallace's speech about being aware of the water that you are in: it's hard work and requires an amount of self-awareness that can be exhausting.

raganwald 15y ago
That won't make a lick of difference. Any statement of the form 'X is great, because ...' or 'I like X, because ...' will be interpreted by a bunch of people as 'He means Y, which I love, is not great and is lesser than X. Otherwise, he would be using Y. He must obviously think it sucks, which shows what an idiot he is'. And the stage is set. Nobody forces you to pander to these people's neuroses. You are not the troll whisperer. This over here is my favourite interview question. That over there is my favourite line of Ruby code. This is my favourite book. I wrote blog posts about all of these subjects and attracted exactly the responses you describe. But I was happiest when I ignored the people who had an agenda of arguing about their favourite interview question or their favoruite line of code or their favourite book. Nobody compels you to play their game. So don't.
- Troll_Whisperer 15y ago
  By choosing a favorite, you cannot help but choose an infinitude of not-favorites. With a high-traffic blog such as yours, it's near certain that some people will believe you've shown yourself to be an idiot by missing a superior choice. Neuroses may be at work in some cases, but it's arrogant to assume that all who disagree with you are neurotic.

krosaen 15y ago

relevant: how to disagree: """ After he has said, "I understand but I disagree," he can make the following remarks to the author: (1) "You are uninformed"; (2) "You Are misinformed"; (3) "You are illogical - your reasoning is not cogent"; (4) "Your analysis is incomplete." """ http://books.google.com/books?id=Z5PpkQadm5EC&lpg=PA154&vq=disagree&pg=PA156#v=onepage&q=i%20understand%20but%20i%20disagree&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Z5PpkQadm5EC&lpg=PA154&... With this in mind, I think saying "I love mercurial" without at least referencing git, the more popular DCVS, will be less convincing since anyone can say, "Your analysis is incomplete - haven't you tried the most popular DCVS?"

mmatants 15y ago
I agree: the issue with "I love X" as a pure statement is that it has nothing to do with why we argue on the Internet. Debating a topic is supposed to enrich us on that subject. I have changed my opinion on things before, based on Slashdot comments (this was way back), and now based on HN comments. Of course, there is also the need to portray ourselves as clever. That's the real driver for flamewars: sophistry. But saying "I love X" does nothing for either cause. People interested in rational decision-making are not engaged; trolls are not discouraged; and newbies are not educated on how to argue better. (edit: fixed a run-on sentence)

sebastianconcpt 15y ago

Relevant, focus on the positive outcome instead of a stupid futile private little war that only distracts people from doing great work with whichever freaking tool they needed to use in order to achieve it.

sitkack 15y ago

I am utterly offended, DOS is awesome. Esp for embedded devices where the OS and the application are the same thing. Less complexity leads to more stability. Flame wars are the most virulent when the enemy is extremely close to your position but doesn't take it. Emacs and VIM, essentially the same. Mercurial and GIT, again, the same. If the differences are too far apart the whole argument becomes, meh. meh.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
gecko 15y ago
Fair enough, so let me remind anyone who wants a very thin OS for embedded x86 applications that FreeDOS (http://www.freedos.org/ http://www.freedos.org/) is a great DOS for the purpose.
- wtracy 15y ago
  Where's the love for eCos? </troll>
- sitkack 15y ago
  Although I haven't used it, there is a version of Python for DOS, http://www.caddit.net/pythond/downloads.php http://www.caddit.net/pythond/downloads.php but Lua might be a better choice.

thyrsus 15y ago

Apparently there are many good arguments for Mercurial, and many bad arguments for mercurial. The author says: "These questions matter. And they’ve been answered, very eloquently, many times." I've used CVS, svn, bzr, and git - I'm still a newbie on those last two and therefore persuadable - so where do I read these Hg answers? Seriously, I'm not doubting that they exist, but I'm getting the impression that google results will be polluted, and I'm not sure even the most beatific tweet stream is going to pull me in; but I will peruse the tweet recommended http://hginit.com/ http://hginit.com/ Seriously, where are the issues carefully explained and addressed?

dkarl 15y ago

I have a solution. Instead of talking about why you are better than the other guy, let’s focus purely on why your system of choice rocks. That’s it. Nice diagnosis; useless solution. Tool quality is relative. Fast, easy, safe, these are relative terms. Take me back to 1995, and CVS would be my best friend. Repositories rarely get corrupted, and when they do, they're easy to fix! For 1995 values of "rarely" and "easy", at least. Standards are different now because better competitors have emerged.