3 ms·
No. I am not addressing your point because your point is not logically related to the topic under discussion. Specifically, your post said: > DLL Hell was wel
by torstenvl 5y ago
No. I am not addressing your point because your point is not logically related to the topic under discussion.
Specifically, your post said:
> DLL Hell was well understood in the mid-90s. I think you need to give him more benefit of the doubt on this point.
The substantive question about whether he adequately addressed the issues with dynamic linking is beside the point. Feel free to agree or disagree with the above poster. Not relevant.
The post I am responding to is about, given ghoward's position that X did not adequately address topic Y, whether it is "giving X the benefit of the doubt" to further assume (a) X did know about topic Y; or (b) X did not know about topic Y.
Because (a) implies dishonesty but (b) merely implies ignorance, "giving X the benefit of the doubt" means you should assume (b) until proven otherwise.
If you want to respond to other topics, feel free to hit the reply button below someone else's post.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y agoThe point under discussion is this line (and the surrounding text) from TFA: > I don’t think Ulrich Drepper could have foreseen all of the problems with DLL Hell (though there were signs on Windows),
- torstenvl 5y agoI'm pretty sure I know what I replied to, and it wasn't that. If you want to go get into some grary internet argument with someone else about that, feel free, but it's off-topic in reply to my comment. Thanks.
- detaro 5y agoBit weird to complain about that when you commented under their comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28737096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28737096
- torstenvl 5y agoCome again? How, exactly? I replied to their comment, and substantively responded to something that was actually in their comment. How is that inconsistent?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]