> as far as my personal "reputation database" is concerned this is strike 2 for the author. Wow, so cocky. > If you go about dismissing decades of engineerin

> as far as my personal "reputation database" is concerned this is strike 2 for the author. Wow, so cocky. > If you go about dismissing decades of engineering history, you better get your facts right. I find most of the opinions on that page are well explained, and they aren't spectacularly bold anyway. You will be hard pressed finding people that think locales are usable and most of string.h is not historical baggage. I also learned something new, for example the thing about isXXX() taking unsigned values. > finding one of the arguments exhibit a lack of good understanding of that thing raises an interrupt for me that its other arguments may also be flawed. You could try the thing about reading in a benevolent way. Don't choose the interpretation that would most upset you. From what I can see you found one nit where the author might not have a complete understanding on the issue, or maybe they just swapped the two arguments. (I'm not quite sure what that explaination was about, and I didn't bother to research. You're right of course about how fread should be used). And then you went back to HN to tear the article in pieces (btw. I find the post to be well above average quality). As far as I'm concerned, this is strike 1 on my list.