3 ms·
I think if the paper can start with the taxtonomy and position the Rpc in it as in the box it would be much better. It is more like he is talking to himself.
by ngcc_hk 5y ago
I think if the paper can start with the taxtonomy and position the Rpc in it as in the box it would be much better. It is more like he is talking to himself. Too much assumption on the reader. Know rpc, Ipc, Fortran, cobol, … sorry bad writing and need too much effort may I say.
What he want to say vs what he said
- alephnan 5y ago> sorry bad writing and need too much effort may I say. I’m sorry but his writing was much more intelligible than yours. This writing is an academic critique by an academic. Some context is expected and they’re writing for their audience ( academics and people who have used RPC or have an opinion on them ).
- commandlinefan 5y agoPretty sure you missed the joke. And I agree with OP that the linked article is pretty impenetrable - he does seem to have something to say, but he doesn't do a good job of saying it. He starts off with what seems to be a very pedantic criticism of the term "RPC" which may be perfectly valid, but he doesn't back it up at all other than to say that procedures exist in programming languages.
- epgui 5y agoWithout defending the other commenter, I'll say I agree about the article being poorly written. I'm a slow & careful reader, and I found the poor grammar and confusing constructions difficult to follow.