3 ms·

Author here. I read that essay a while ago and reread it before publishing my post. I don't think the author makes a good case. They make bare assertions with

Author here. I read that essay a while ago and reread it before publishing my post. I don't think the author makes a good case. They make bare assertions without examples and without evidence, so it's unconvincing. For example, they say that a "Considered Harmful" essay: > often serves to inflame whatever debate is in progress, and thus makes it that much harder for a solution to be found through any means. But this could be true of any essay. More to the point, I think that the tone of the essay or post matters more. Case in point, my "Dynamic Linking Needs to Die" post probably inflames the debate more than this new "Considered Harmful" post. Maybe "Considered Harmful" essays have a reputation for inflaming the debate, and there's an argument to be made for that. But I personally don't think my post is one that follows that reputation. Also, because I was writing a post about a pre-existing "Considered Harmful" essay, it was natural to use it, especially since I needed to make it clear that my previous post is harmful too.

jasode 5y ago
>Maybe "Considered Harmful" essays have a reputation for inflaming the debate, and there's an argument to be made for that. But I personally don't think my post is one that follows that reputation. Neither your post title nor your content bothered me but just as fyi... some people are very irritated by "snowclones". My previous comment with various examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19071532 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19071532
- ghoward 5y ago
  Yeah, I suspected people might be. But since I was answering a "Considered Harmful" essay, it was too easy. Eh, oh well.
IshKebab 5y ago
Either way, "considered harmful" is a tired and unoriginal cliché. Using it twice in one title is just stonkingly uncreative. I agree with most of the article but the title sucks! Also I'm not sure how you wrote so much about using LLVM IR as a portable executable format without mentioning WebAssembly or PNaCl once!
- ghoward 5y ago
  > Either way, "considered harmful" is a tired and unoriginal cliché. Using it twice in one title is just stonkingly uncreative. > I agree with most of the article but the title sucks! You are correct. I don't claim to be creative, especially with post titles. To be honest, I'm surprised this post got as much traction as it did. > Also I'm not sure how you wrote so much about using LLVM IR as a portable executable format without mentioning WebAssembly or PNaCl once! Because, in my opinion, they will not solve the problem. WebAssembly is too constrained. PNaCl uses LLVM, which would need to be redesigned to do all that I want.

jasode 5y ago

>Maybe "Considered Harmful" essays have a reputation for inflaming the debate, and there's an argument to be made for that. But I personally don't think my post is one that follows that reputation. Neither your post title nor your content bothered me but just as fyi... some people are very irritated by "snowclones". My previous comment with various examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19071532 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19071532

ghoward 5y ago
Yeah, I suspected people might be. But since I was answering a "Considered Harmful" essay, it was too easy. Eh, oh well.

IshKebab 5y ago

Either way, "considered harmful" is a tired and unoriginal cliché. Using it twice in one title is just stonkingly uncreative. I agree with most of the article but the title sucks! Also I'm not sure how you wrote so much about using LLVM IR as a portable executable format without mentioning WebAssembly or PNaCl once!

ghoward 5y ago
> Either way, "considered harmful" is a tired and unoriginal cliché. Using it twice in one title is just stonkingly uncreative. > I agree with most of the article but the title sucks! You are correct. I don't claim to be creative, especially with post titles. To be honest, I'm surprised this post got as much traction as it did. > Also I'm not sure how you wrote so much about using LLVM IR as a portable executable format without mentioning WebAssembly or PNaCl once! Because, in my opinion, they will not solve the problem. WebAssembly is too constrained. PNaCl uses LLVM, which would need to be redesigned to do all that I want.