4 ms·

Okay, but also keep proper perspective. 2011 is not some kind of ancient history in the domain of fluid mechanics and fan design. Reminds me of the time some R

by SilasX 4y ago

Okay, but also keep proper perspective. 2011 is not some kind of ancient history in the domain of fluid mechanics and fan design. Reminds me of the time some Rust advocates insisted 2016 was an era before programmers were aware of the concepts of abstraction and separation of concerns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109418

anamexis 4y ago
The link seems to be you just constructing that straw man, with no one insisting on those things at all.
- SilasX 4y ago
  I said the problem was that the function calls didn't obey well-understood practices for abstraction.[1] Responses defend it on the grounds that it was a long time ago, i.e. 2016. Where's the straw man? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109093
  - anamexis 4y ago
    Where does anyone insist that "2016 was an era before programmers were aware of the concepts of abstraction and separation of concerns"?
    - SilasX 4y ago
      Like I just said, the part where they insist my expectations of that library where too high because it was 2016, and my expectation was that it obeyed proper abstraction.
      - anamexis 4y ago
        I don't see anyone insisting on that, either.
        SilasX 4y ago
        >>they insist my expectations of that library where too high >I don't see anyone insisting on that, either. Okay, I'm really lost -- if they weren't disputing that my expectations were too high, then their comments ("it was way back in 2016, man!") were not responsive at all. Is that really the pillar you want to lean on? In any case, let's review: Steve Klabnik dismissing my criticism because the library is abandoned (as if that's a defense of a 2016 library not having abstraction): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18943056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18943056 User cetra dismissing my points because the library "had not been updated" in a number of years (as if you can't expect a 2016 library to have to proper abstraction until it gets updates): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18943056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18943056 fpgaminer dismissing my points because "Static, perfect code is rare" (as if failure to abstract irrelevant details is okay because no one gets the code perfect with no need to ever change): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109529 kaoD insisting it was a dark age of rust, justifying the poor abstraction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19110116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19110116 Are we looking at the same links?
        anamexis 4y ago
        Yes. I don't see a single one of those comments implying that Rust developers didn't know about proper abstraction in 2016. The closest might be kaoD, who says: > I'm sure they were more concerned with making the code work, making it secure, etc. i.e. proper abstraction was not their priority at that time. I think you are reading into these comments and finding meaning that doesn't exist.
        SilasX 4y ago
        So you agree they weren’t saying anything that substantively refuted my claim that proper use of abstraction was a reasonable expectation to have of Rust devs in 2016? Then what exactly are you disagreeing with? Edit: So, yes, I agree that Rust devs knew about a abstraction. When the replies tell me that, they’re not disagreeing with anything I’ve said. My point is that it therefore follows that it was a reasonable expectation to have of the code, that it obeys abstraction. They were giving excuses for why it might not have kept up with eg newly discovered bugs, but not why it would fail to get such basic stuff right … besides, of course, it being the dark ages of 2016.
411111111111111 4y ago
I don't think linking to that comment favours your point, honestly. > Rust 1.0 was just released and the ecosystem was mostly maturing at that point. You're talking about version 0.2.36 of a library that had been in development for less than two years during a quite tempestuous time in Rust.
- SilasX 4y ago
  And like I said at the time, that would excuse failure on some edge case. It wouldn't excuse the thing I was actually criticizing, that "the calls for common functions require you to specify low-level implementation details that don't matter to you". That's the kind of thing the typical software dev gets right when designing the function, because abstraction was very well understood in 2016. It's not something they would only figure out after fixing the thousandth bug.
NavinF 4y ago
Linked thread shows you getting schooled. You used a crappy library that died before it ever made it to version 1.0, a mistake that everyone makes at least once. On topic: This article was written by an SI (system integrator). 2011 is ancient history as far as PC hardware goes. Eg today's fans are a lot more efficient at the same price point and most enthusiasts need a lot more static pressure for radiators.
duskwuff 4y ago
> 2011 is not some kind of ancient history in the domain of fluid mechanics and fan design. But it is for most of the other articles this site publishes about consumer computer hardware, like the two that were published surrounding this one ([1], [2]). This article just happens to be an exception. [1]: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Product-Qualification-Intel-Remote-Management-Module-112/ https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Product-Qualifica... [2]: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Product-Qualification-Antec-Solo-II-108/ https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Product-Qualifica...
AaronFriel 4y ago
Is Rust on topic here?

by SilasX 4y ago

anamexis 4y ago

The link seems to be you just constructing that straw man, with no one insisting on those things at all.

SilasX 4y ago
I said the problem was that the function calls didn't obey well-understood practices for abstraction.[1] Responses defend it on the grounds that it was a long time ago, i.e. 2016. Where's the straw man? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109093
- anamexis 4y ago
  Where does anyone insist that "2016 was an era before programmers were aware of the concepts of abstraction and separation of concerns"?
  - SilasX 4y ago
    Like I just said, the part where they insist my expectations of that library where too high because it was 2016, and my expectation was that it obeyed proper abstraction.
    - anamexis 4y ago
      I don't see anyone insisting on that, either.
      - SilasX 4y ago
        >>they insist my expectations of that library where too high >I don't see anyone insisting on that, either. Okay, I'm really lost -- if they weren't disputing that my expectations were too high, then their comments ("it was way back in 2016, man!") were not responsive at all. Is that really the pillar you want to lean on? In any case, let's review: Steve Klabnik dismissing my criticism because the library is abandoned (as if that's a defense of a 2016 library not having abstraction): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18943056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18943056 User cetra dismissing my points because the library "had not been updated" in a number of years (as if you can't expect a 2016 library to have to proper abstraction until it gets updates): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18943056 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18943056 fpgaminer dismissing my points because "Static, perfect code is rare" (as if failure to abstract irrelevant details is okay because no one gets the code perfect with no need to ever change): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19109529 kaoD insisting it was a dark age of rust, justifying the poor abstraction: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19110116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19110116 Are we looking at the same links?
        anamexis 4y ago
        Yes. I don't see a single one of those comments implying that Rust developers didn't know about proper abstraction in 2016. The closest might be kaoD, who says: > I'm sure they were more concerned with making the code work, making it secure, etc. i.e. proper abstraction was not their priority at that time. I think you are reading into these comments and finding meaning that doesn't exist.
        SilasX 4y ago
        So you agree they weren’t saying anything that substantively refuted my claim that proper use of abstraction was a reasonable expectation to have of Rust devs in 2016? Then what exactly are you disagreeing with? Edit: So, yes, I agree that Rust devs knew about a abstraction. When the replies tell me that, they’re not disagreeing with anything I’ve said. My point is that it therefore follows that it was a reasonable expectation to have of the code, that it obeys abstraction. They were giving excuses for why it might not have kept up with eg newly discovered bugs, but not why it would fail to get such basic stuff right … besides, of course, it being the dark ages of 2016.

411111111111111 4y ago

I don't think linking to that comment favours your point, honestly. > Rust 1.0 was just released and the ecosystem was mostly maturing at that point. You're talking about version 0.2.36 of a library that had been in development for less than two years during a quite tempestuous time in Rust.

SilasX 4y ago
And like I said at the time, that would excuse failure on some edge case. It wouldn't excuse the thing I was actually criticizing, that "the calls for common functions require you to specify low-level implementation details that don't matter to you". That's the kind of thing the typical software dev gets right when designing the function, because abstraction was very well understood in 2016. It's not something they would only figure out after fixing the thousandth bug.

NavinF 4y ago

Linked thread shows you getting schooled. You used a crappy library that died before it ever made it to version 1.0, a mistake that everyone makes at least once. On topic: This article was written by an SI (system integrator). 2011 is ancient history as far as PC hardware goes. Eg today's fans are a lot more efficient at the same price point and most enthusiasts need a lot more static pressure for radiators.

duskwuff 4y ago

> 2011 is not some kind of ancient history in the domain of fluid mechanics and fan design. But it is for most of the other articles this site publishes about consumer computer hardware, like the two that were published surrounding this one ([1], [2]). This article just happens to be an exception. [1]: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Product-Qualification-Intel-Remote-Management-Module-112/ https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Product-Qualifica... [2]: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Product-Qualification-Antec-Solo-II-108/ https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Product-Qualifica...

AaronFriel 4y ago

Is Rust on topic here?