4 ms·

I wasn’t offended (and I didn’t downvote you) but I failed to see the point you made. Feel free to elaborate. I don’t understand why you mentioned the web brows

by cpach 5y ago

I wasn’t offended (and I didn’t downvote you) but I failed to see the point you made. Feel free to elaborate. I don’t understand why you mentioned the web browser. Don’t we all take for granted that the user will utilize a web browser to access a website? Be it Chrome or Lynx.

cxr 5y ago
> Don’t we all take for granted that the user will utilize a web browser to access a website? That is my point. If it is a given that Runtime A is going to be involved, and your angle is to tout the benefit of binary B being to let you to eliminate Runtime C, why even settle for now needing to rely on B? Why wouldn't you try to avoid it as well? Just use A.
- croon 5y ago
  Presumably because generating your site with B was faster than writing HTML directly.
  - cxr 5y ago
    ...where does "writing HTML directly" come from? We're still talking about using a static site generator, whether Runtime A and Runtime C are being used, or Runtime A together with binary B, or just Runtime A.
    - croon 5y ago
      From the same place as your: > If you're into cutting out prereqs when you can, why not cut out one more? You can't cut out the browser, so the only thing left was that single binary you first replied to.
      - cxr 5y ago
        > cut out [...] the single binary That's a correct reading of my comment. To take that to mean, though, that you should start "writing HTML directly" is a logical leap—and one that happens to turn out to be wrong; it's not something I wrote, and it's not even something I implied. It's an incorrect reading of my comment.
        croon 5y ago
        Correct or not, I would assume it's the reading everyone made. We all read in good faith and write in good faith, but if everyone misreads something you write, either everyone else has to try harder to decipher it or you can perhaps try to phrase it in a way that's less ambiguous.
        cxr 5y ago
        You missed the "logical leap" part. It was a big logical leap—bordering on nonsensical which you pretty much acknowledged in your first response. If, when reading someone's comment, your first instinct is to say to yourself, "How could someone think that's a good idea?" then your second thought should be, "Yeah, how could someone think that? I'll bet they don't." This isn't Twitter; replying to a comment as if, out of the range of possible interpretations, what the author intended was the dumbest one—just because you can plausibly argue that's what their words really meant—is pretty much against the rules. > I would assume it's the reading everyone made Even after what just happened, you're still making assumptions? > We all read in good faith That's disputable. Actual observed behavior on HN lately seems to trend towards the easiest/shortest path to dismissal, or: How can I reaffirm that someone I want to disagree with is dumber than I am?, again à la Twitter. > phrase it in a way that's less ambiguous Okay, I'll bite. How should it have been phrased? By the time you had written the comment prior to your most recent one, I had already posted two other comments that were pretty damn specific, one of them excruciatingly so: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28524423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28524423> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839> What you're demanding is to spend an inordinate amount of effort seemingly to optimize for folks who are some combination of (a) subject to guardrails on their thoughts but silent about it, (b) themselves unwilling to put two seconds' consideration into an idea posted on a site explicitly meant for curious discussion, and/or (c) possibly deliberately uncharitable/hostile. <https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.html https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.htm...>
        croon 5y ago
        I read your two linked comments, and am still not clear on what you mean. Are you suggesting that we use an extension/addon for Firefox or Chrome for generating ones site from .md over the thread-starting rust binary? If so, for what reason? In the second comment you suggest "listing transformations" "and then have a machine perform those steps". We must have different views on "damn specific". I'm not demanding anything. You posted something that was immediately downvoted, and asked why, and I spent time outlining a possible explanation. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, but another perspective rarely hurts. You do you, we all strive to be understood.
- cpach 5y ago
  I’m afraid I don’t follow. If I have Firefox + dependencies installed, how would that help me to generate a static website that’s written in Markdown?
  - cxr 5y ago
    The same way that a "JAMstack" static site generator like Hexo, Jekyll, etc that requires some additional Runtime Cₙ, Cᵣ (or binary B or so on) helps you generate a static website from Markdown—except you're using a static site generator that instead targets the Runtime A (i.e. Firefox or Chrome or whatever browser you want) that we have quietly assumed is already available and is going to be used at some point, anyway. From <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24495646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24495646>: > [There is] a "packager" for putting together add-ons. It uses "node.js". All it really does is apply "zip" to some files. I tried to install the "packager" on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. It had several hundred dependencies, and wouldn't run because of some version dependency in node.js for something totally irrelevant to the task at hand From <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839>: > If folks were really committed to improving the developer experience, [...] development would work like this: ¶1. Download the project source tree ¶2. Open README.html ¶3. Drag and drop the project source onto README.html See also: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936>

by cpach 5y ago

cxr 5y ago

> Don’t we all take for granted that the user will utilize a web browser to access a website? That is my point. If it is a given that Runtime A is going to be involved, and your angle is to tout the benefit of binary B being to let you to eliminate Runtime C, why even settle for now needing to rely on B? Why wouldn't you try to avoid it as well? Just use A.

croon 5y ago
Presumably because generating your site with B was faster than writing HTML directly.
- cxr 5y ago
  ...where does "writing HTML directly" come from? We're still talking about using a static site generator, whether Runtime A and Runtime C are being used, or Runtime A together with binary B, or just Runtime A.
  - croon 5y ago
    From the same place as your: > If you're into cutting out prereqs when you can, why not cut out one more? You can't cut out the browser, so the only thing left was that single binary you first replied to.
    - cxr 5y ago
      > cut out [...] the single binary That's a correct reading of my comment. To take that to mean, though, that you should start "writing HTML directly" is a logical leap—and one that happens to turn out to be wrong; it's not something I wrote, and it's not even something I implied. It's an incorrect reading of my comment.
      - croon 5y ago
        Correct or not, I would assume it's the reading everyone made. We all read in good faith and write in good faith, but if everyone misreads something you write, either everyone else has to try harder to decipher it or you can perhaps try to phrase it in a way that's less ambiguous.
        cxr 5y ago
        You missed the "logical leap" part. It was a big logical leap—bordering on nonsensical which you pretty much acknowledged in your first response. If, when reading someone's comment, your first instinct is to say to yourself, "How could someone think that's a good idea?" then your second thought should be, "Yeah, how could someone think that? I'll bet they don't." This isn't Twitter; replying to a comment as if, out of the range of possible interpretations, what the author intended was the dumbest one—just because you can plausibly argue that's what their words really meant—is pretty much against the rules. > I would assume it's the reading everyone made Even after what just happened, you're still making assumptions? > We all read in good faith That's disputable. Actual observed behavior on HN lately seems to trend towards the easiest/shortest path to dismissal, or: How can I reaffirm that someone I want to disagree with is dumber than I am?, again à la Twitter. > phrase it in a way that's less ambiguous Okay, I'll bite. How should it have been phrased? By the time you had written the comment prior to your most recent one, I had already posted two other comments that were pretty damn specific, one of them excruciatingly so: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28524423 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28524423> <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839> What you're demanding is to spend an inordinate amount of effort seemingly to optimize for folks who are some combination of (a) subject to guardrails on their thoughts but silent about it, (b) themselves unwilling to put two seconds' consideration into an idea posted on a site explicitly meant for curious discussion, and/or (c) possibly deliberately uncharitable/hostile. <https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.html https://pchiusano.github.io/2014-10-11/defensive-writing.htm...>
        croon 5y ago
        I read your two linked comments, and am still not clear on what you mean. Are you suggesting that we use an extension/addon for Firefox or Chrome for generating ones site from .md over the thread-starting rust binary? If so, for what reason? In the second comment you suggest "listing transformations" "and then have a machine perform those steps". We must have different views on "damn specific". I'm not demanding anything. You posted something that was immediately downvoted, and asked why, and I spent time outlining a possible explanation. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, but another perspective rarely hurts. You do you, we all strive to be understood.
cpach 5y ago
I’m afraid I don’t follow. If I have Firefox + dependencies installed, how would that help me to generate a static website that’s written in Markdown?
- cxr 5y ago
  The same way that a "JAMstack" static site generator like Hexo, Jekyll, etc that requires some additional Runtime Cₙ, Cᵣ (or binary B or so on) helps you generate a static website from Markdown—except you're using a static site generator that instead targets the Runtime A (i.e. Firefox or Chrome or whatever browser you want) that we have quietly assumed is already available and is going to be used at some point, anyway. From <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24495646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24495646>: > [There is] a "packager" for putting together add-ons. It uses "node.js". All it really does is apply "zip" to some files. I tried to install the "packager" on Ubuntu 18.04 LTS. It had several hundred dependencies, and wouldn't run because of some version dependency in node.js for something totally irrelevant to the task at hand From <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28518839>: > If folks were really committed to improving the developer experience, [...] development would work like this: ¶1. Download the project source tree ¶2. Open README.html ¶3. Drag and drop the project source onto README.html See also: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936>