4 ms·
I think it's less about the xkcd (I had similar thoughts but hadn't looked at the linked standard so don't know if it's justified), and more that simply linking
by JauntyHatAngle 5y ago
I think it's less about the xkcd (I had similar thoughts but hadn't looked at the linked standard so don't know if it's justified), and more that simply linking the xkcd is not really enough discussion to justify it as a neat summary.
Linked in context with other response points and it's a worthy reference, but dropped without much further discussion and the onus feels like it remains on you to justify it.
- red0point 5y agoHe proposes a new standard in his repo. He doesn‘t explain why it‘s better (not in the repo, nor in the comment), just mentions that all others are bad. I call him out for just re-inventing the wheel by mentioning the xkcd. He proposes a new standard in his repo. He doesn‘t explain why it‘s better (not in the repo, nor in the comment), just mentions that all others are bad. I call him out for just re-inventing the wheel by mentioning the xkcd. And indeed, critical self-reflection is necessary when developing a standard - why is it necessary? What does it do better? Otherwise, it‘s just as in the xkcd - a standard that nobody will ever use. And instead of explaining just that he choses to attack me. But you‘re right, a little accompanying text wouldn‘t have hurt.
- red0point 5y agoEdit: I‘m on mobile so sorry about that weird comment repeating the same thing again and again, I was rewriting these paragraphs a few times, should‘ve come out as one. Oh well.