3 ms·

> (...) to come in and put-down someone's Show HN project. There was no put-down. There was a very informative and insightful post explaining that a) unlike th

> (...) to come in and put-down someone's Show HN project. There was no put-down. There was a very informative and insightful post explaining that a) unlike the original claim, the project does not use a virtual DOM, b) the technique used is indeed very performant and hard to beat, c) other projects also use it. You need to go way outside of your way to pretend to feel any sort of outrage over this.

codingdave 4y ago
The put-down to me was where it said: "it's very easy to...", but failed to explain it beyond a few words. I'm relatively clever, but don't know exactly what they are talking about, and the lack of explanation with a statement of ease gives an implication that we should just know their solution. That changes the message from an informative comment about alternative approaches into something the could be read as a dismissive rejection. Now, a link to an article explaining the alternative approach... or even just one or two more explanatory sentences... would not come off that way. And maybe it is easy, but it would be better to just put up the facts, not judgments. Post an explanation and let the reader decide whether or not they think it is easy.
- arinlen 4y ago
  > The put-down to me was where it said: "it's very easy to...", but failed to explain it beyond a few words. What do you mean by "failed to explain it beyond a few words"? OP stated in no uncertain terms that this approach was followed in lit-html, provided a link to a page from lit's site where this approach is thoroughly explained, and if you really want to look closely at real-world implementations you already have the link to lit-html. How much more do you want to demand from someone in order to point out in a web forum that someone made a mistake? Also, what stops anyone from posting any question asking for ay clarification? Or are we supposed to jump right onto the "I'm being persecuted" mode?

codingdave 4y ago

The put-down to me was where it said: "it's very easy to...", but failed to explain it beyond a few words. I'm relatively clever, but don't know exactly what they are talking about, and the lack of explanation with a statement of ease gives an implication that we should just know their solution. That changes the message from an informative comment about alternative approaches into something the could be read as a dismissive rejection. Now, a link to an article explaining the alternative approach... or even just one or two more explanatory sentences... would not come off that way. And maybe it is easy, but it would be better to just put up the facts, not judgments. Post an explanation and let the reader decide whether or not they think it is easy.

arinlen 4y ago
> The put-down to me was where it said: "it's very easy to...", but failed to explain it beyond a few words. What do you mean by "failed to explain it beyond a few words"? OP stated in no uncertain terms that this approach was followed in lit-html, provided a link to a page from lit's site where this approach is thoroughly explained, and if you really want to look closely at real-world implementations you already have the link to lit-html. How much more do you want to demand from someone in order to point out in a web forum that someone made a mistake? Also, what stops anyone from posting any question asking for ay clarification? Or are we supposed to jump right onto the "I'm being persecuted" mode?