4 ms·

> 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 interp

by 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.

cxr 5y ago
> For all the text you have written, you have not really stated which of those to cut out, and what to replace it with. Neither one of these claims are true. You're again ignoring the context on record. You yourself stated, "You can't cut out the browser, so the only thing left was that single binary you first replied to", and the general tone is implying that being this explicit for something so obvious is superfluous (and I'd agree). Even so, there's my reply in the affirmative. So the combo of so-obvious-it-doesn't-need-to-be-stated + having it stated anyway is working against you here on the claim that I never clearly described which to cut out. As for the second part, I assert that putting up a /colophon page that can function "as a substitute for your static site generator binary" similar to the hypothetical README.html that I mention in comment 28407936 <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936> in fact _very_ straightforwardly addresses the "what to replace it with" issue. > Is there a product or project you can recommend? That's a subtle change in criteria. Many people are not content to use anything except a homegrown static site generator, and my original reply was only supposed to refer to the concept of using the runtime that you already get for free in your browser to cut out the need for either a separate runtime ("full language" runtime, in their words) or a separate binary that needs to be installed and maintained out-of-band. It was not supposed to be a recommendation of a specific project, nor does the context demand it. > sounds dismissive/rude to the comment you were replying to (equally likely reason why you were getting downvoted) That's a new claim original to this comment only—again, changing context—and in any case is another bad reading. > But hey, I might be wrong, maybe I'm too stupid to get it I don't think you're too stupid to get it; I think you're just committed to not understanding, or that you're possibly feigning a lack of understanding well past the point where you really do understand, e.g. because your real commitment is to the issue of whether I have communicated clearly—and a sudden realization on your part (esp. of something that _was_, on a second reading, adequately conveyed but earlier missed) would conflict with that commitment.
- croon 5y ago
  So instead of taking me at my word, you assume the opposite of that, that I in reality do understand what you mean. Pot, kettle etc. No, I truly still don't understand what you were or are suggesting. Have you moved the generation software from your machine to serverside behind the colophon page, making it no longer static? If you don't want what you apparently consider an uncharitable interpretation the easiest way is to provide more room for another. Please ask someone in your life to read this exchange and give an outside perspective on it. It might be eye opening. Or you'll have confirmation that I'm just winding you up, or whatever it is I'm doing.
  - cxr 5y ago
    > Have you moved the generation software from your machine to serverside behind the colophon page, making it no longer static? What? No. Geez. The /colophon page itself, as stated, already contains the "transformations that need to be applied to produce the desired output". Aside from that page, there is nothing except the runtime baked in to the browser that you are already using. That content lives as a file inside the source repo of the site you're trying to publish—and y'know what, even though I suggested making it accessible from /colophon in the final product, in fact, that doesn't even matter! You could have it be called README.html in the source repo for all it matters, just like I already mentioned. There is no need for a separately installed "full language runtime". There is no separate binary instead, whether self-contained or not. There is no separate browser extension. There is no separate haha-here's-an-application-server-so-it's-not-actually-a-static-site-after-all. There is no need for any of those things. Why do you continue throwing even more of these types of questions my way when every previous one has already been struck down by an answer in the negative (and a "yes" to any of them would contradict the very premise)? I strongly suggest you go through your exercise of having someone else read through this, because this is exasperatingly repetitive in a way that is not my fault. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ghB0mBugww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ghB0mBugww>

by croon 5y ago

cxr 5y ago

> For all the text you have written, you have not really stated which of those to cut out, and what to replace it with. Neither one of these claims are true. You're again ignoring the context on record. You yourself stated, "You can't cut out the browser, so the only thing left was that single binary you first replied to", and the general tone is implying that being this explicit for something so obvious is superfluous (and I'd agree). Even so, there's my reply in the affirmative. So the combo of so-obvious-it-doesn't-need-to-be-stated + having it stated anyway is working against you here on the claim that I never clearly described which to cut out. As for the second part, I assert that putting up a /colophon page that can function "as a substitute for your static site generator binary" similar to the hypothetical README.html that I mention in comment 28407936 <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28407936> in fact _very_ straightforwardly addresses the "what to replace it with" issue. > Is there a product or project you can recommend? That's a subtle change in criteria. Many people are not content to use anything except a homegrown static site generator, and my original reply was only supposed to refer to the concept of using the runtime that you already get for free in your browser to cut out the need for either a separate runtime ("full language" runtime, in their words) or a separate binary that needs to be installed and maintained out-of-band. It was not supposed to be a recommendation of a specific project, nor does the context demand it. > sounds dismissive/rude to the comment you were replying to (equally likely reason why you were getting downvoted) That's a new claim original to this comment only—again, changing context—and in any case is another bad reading. > But hey, I might be wrong, maybe I'm too stupid to get it I don't think you're too stupid to get it; I think you're just committed to not understanding, or that you're possibly feigning a lack of understanding well past the point where you really do understand, e.g. because your real commitment is to the issue of whether I have communicated clearly—and a sudden realization on your part (esp. of something that _was_, on a second reading, adequately conveyed but earlier missed) would conflict with that commitment.

croon 5y ago
So instead of taking me at my word, you assume the opposite of that, that I in reality do understand what you mean. Pot, kettle etc. No, I truly still don't understand what you were or are suggesting. Have you moved the generation software from your machine to serverside behind the colophon page, making it no longer static? If you don't want what you apparently consider an uncharitable interpretation the easiest way is to provide more room for another. Please ask someone in your life to read this exchange and give an outside perspective on it. It might be eye opening. Or you'll have confirmation that I'm just winding you up, or whatever it is I'm doing.
- cxr 5y ago
  > Have you moved the generation software from your machine to serverside behind the colophon page, making it no longer static? What? No. Geez. The /colophon page itself, as stated, already contains the "transformations that need to be applied to produce the desired output". Aside from that page, there is nothing except the runtime baked in to the browser that you are already using. That content lives as a file inside the source repo of the site you're trying to publish—and y'know what, even though I suggested making it accessible from /colophon in the final product, in fact, that doesn't even matter! You could have it be called README.html in the source repo for all it matters, just like I already mentioned. There is no need for a separately installed "full language runtime". There is no separate binary instead, whether self-contained or not. There is no separate browser extension. There is no separate haha-here's-an-application-server-so-it's-not-actually-a-static-site-after-all. There is no need for any of those things. Why do you continue throwing even more of these types of questions my way when every previous one has already been struck down by an answer in the negative (and a "yes" to any of them would contradict the very premise)? I strongly suggest you go through your exercise of having someone else read through this, because this is exasperatingly repetitive in a way that is not my fault. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ghB0mBugww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ghB0mBugww>