5 ms·

Presumably because generating your site with B was faster than writing HTML directly.

by croon 5y ago

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.
        cxr 5y ago
        > Are you suggesting that we use an extension/addon for Firefox or Chrome No. A download-this-extension step wouldn't be much different than a download-this-single-binary step. I am specifically talking about eliminating inessential bits and bobs from the pipeline. > We must have different views on "damn specific". Respond to the message in context. Even if you still fail to understand them, are you arguing that those messages are ambiguous enough to allow for the interpretation that I could have been talking about completely abandoning the use of a static site generator and "writing HTML directly", as you were originally saying? Ignoring that issue, I don't know what's unclear about dedicating a page example.com/colophon to work as a substitute for your static site generator binary. When you want to update example.com, you visit its /colophon, you let it ingest the directory containing your markdown sources and templates and other assets for processing—same as with any static site generator—and the result is a a bunch of post-processed files comprising your site's static resources—again: same as any other static site generator produces. If I had to bet a month of warm showers on it, I'd go with my suspicion that guard rails on your thoughts are the source of confusion here, and not that I failed in any identifiable way to state exactly what I'm talking about.
        croon 5y ago
        > Respond to the message in context. Even if you still fail to understand them, are you arguing that those messages are ambiguous enough to allow for the interpretation that I could have been talking about completely abandoning the use of a static site generator and "writing HTML directly", as you were originally saying? Ok, let's get down to brass tacks. The post you originally responded to was: > Oh interesting, that's a Rust-based SSG. Definitely something nice about a single binary and not needing a full language runtime installed. That's someone stating that it's nice not needing anything outside of a rust binary, some reading, and of course, as you state, a browser for reading the resulting site. You then responded with, verbatim: > Well, one program to generate the site, and then an implicit assumption that you'll use another program (your Web browser) at some point to verify the output. > If you're into cutting out prereqs when you can, why not cut out one more? You are suggesting cutting out one more. For all the text you have written, you have not really stated which of those to cut out, and what to replace it with. Is there a product or project you can recommend? > If I had to bet a month of warm showers on it, I'd go with my suspicion that guard rails on your thoughts are the source of confusion here, and not that I failed in any identifiable way to state exactly what I'm talking about. You can either blame everyone else for not getting you, or imagine a scenario where your thoughts to you make complete sense, but when translating that to writing, some steps are ignored and you're being downvoted because the suggestions either doesn't contribute anything (as it's written, which is the correct reason to downvote something), or sounds dismissive/rude to the comment you were replying to (equally likely reason why you were getting downvoted). You're arguing with me to change something about my interpretation, despite me having spent likely 10 times more effort on it than any other person on here did with your comment. But hey, I might be wrong, maybe I'm too stupid to get it. I have no power over how you communicate. I have tried making myself very clear many times over, and I assume you have too. But obviously we're not understanding eachother. Good luck in all your future endeavours. You win whatever it is you wanted to win.

Presumably because generating your site with B was faster than writing HTML directly.

by 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.
        cxr 5y ago
        > Are you suggesting that we use an extension/addon for Firefox or Chrome No. A download-this-extension step wouldn't be much different than a download-this-single-binary step. I am specifically talking about eliminating inessential bits and bobs from the pipeline. > We must have different views on "damn specific". Respond to the message in context. Even if you still fail to understand them, are you arguing that those messages are ambiguous enough to allow for the interpretation that I could have been talking about completely abandoning the use of a static site generator and "writing HTML directly", as you were originally saying? Ignoring that issue, I don't know what's unclear about dedicating a page example.com/colophon to work as a substitute for your static site generator binary. When you want to update example.com, you visit its /colophon, you let it ingest the directory containing your markdown sources and templates and other assets for processing—same as with any static site generator—and the result is a a bunch of post-processed files comprising your site's static resources—again: same as any other static site generator produces. If I had to bet a month of warm showers on it, I'd go with my suspicion that guard rails on your thoughts are the source of confusion here, and not that I failed in any identifiable way to state exactly what I'm talking about.
        croon 5y ago
        > Respond to the message in context. Even if you still fail to understand them, are you arguing that those messages are ambiguous enough to allow for the interpretation that I could have been talking about completely abandoning the use of a static site generator and "writing HTML directly", as you were originally saying? Ok, let's get down to brass tacks. The post you originally responded to was: > Oh interesting, that's a Rust-based SSG. Definitely something nice about a single binary and not needing a full language runtime installed. That's someone stating that it's nice not needing anything outside of a rust binary, some reading, and of course, as you state, a browser for reading the resulting site. You then responded with, verbatim: > Well, one program to generate the site, and then an implicit assumption that you'll use another program (your Web browser) at some point to verify the output. > If you're into cutting out prereqs when you can, why not cut out one more? You are suggesting cutting out one more. For all the text you have written, you have not really stated which of those to cut out, and what to replace it with. Is there a product or project you can recommend? > If I had to bet a month of warm showers on it, I'd go with my suspicion that guard rails on your thoughts are the source of confusion here, and not that I failed in any identifiable way to state exactly what I'm talking about. You can either blame everyone else for not getting you, or imagine a scenario where your thoughts to you make complete sense, but when translating that to writing, some steps are ignored and you're being downvoted because the suggestions either doesn't contribute anything (as it's written, which is the correct reason to downvote something), or sounds dismissive/rude to the comment you were replying to (equally likely reason why you were getting downvoted). You're arguing with me to change something about my interpretation, despite me having spent likely 10 times more effort on it than any other person on here did with your comment. But hey, I might be wrong, maybe I'm too stupid to get it. I have no power over how you communicate. I have tried making myself very clear many times over, and I assume you have too. But obviously we're not understanding eachother. Good luck in all your future endeavours. You win whatever it is you wanted to win.