2 ms·

I mean, they are very plainly not concerned about the OP or “state of architecting” but that this successful project coming from a student is going to inspire o

I mean, they are very plainly not concerned about the OP or “state of architecting” but that this successful project coming from a student is going to inspire other students to copy the architecture shown here. Explicitly, > A bunch of people take information they come across on the internet and think that's the only way of doing things, so if someone comes across the post, looks at the architecture they might think building it with so many components is a required thing, not just optional for really big projects. > So basically, I want to save myself and others time. This seems like not only ridiculous critique, but also just plainly not the author’s problem what others choose to do with his open source project. > Said differently, it's worrying that people decide to overengineer architectures like that before there's any real need. It's a sysops version of the early optimization problem And why exactly is it yours or other commenter’s problem what people choose to do with their own time? How does it in any way shape or form impact you what this other person chose to do with their project that you will never maintain, contribute to, or likely even use?

airstrike 4y ago
Again, I think you're focused on this one instance and the GP was saying "if this guy chose this approach, countless more people are making similar decisions", which as a trend in the long run could make it bad "for everyone" (himself and others) You may or may not disagree, but it's arguably a worthwhile comment. Possibly more so than your comment on the merits of someone else's comment... which just derails the conversation into this meta-discussion > And why exactly is it yours or other commenter’s problem what people choose to do with their own time? How does it in any way shape or form impact you what this other person chose to do with their project that you will never maintain, contribute to, or likely even use? Critiquing technology referenced in submitted posts is what we do for fun around here...
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  I am replying to a person’s comment so, yes, of course I’m “focused on this one instance” and replying to what was said. That is, literally, the purpose of replies. I think the critique was not constructive, was dismissive about an entire project, backseat architected, and did all that with absolutely no context on the requirements, limitations, and decisions made. In short, it’s a shit critique and I called it as such.

airstrike 4y ago

Again, I think you're focused on this one instance and the GP was saying "if this guy chose this approach, countless more people are making similar decisions", which as a trend in the long run could make it bad "for everyone" (himself and others) You may or may not disagree, but it's arguably a worthwhile comment. Possibly more so than your comment on the merits of someone else's comment... which just derails the conversation into this meta-discussion > And why exactly is it yours or other commenter’s problem what people choose to do with their own time? How does it in any way shape or form impact you what this other person chose to do with their project that you will never maintain, contribute to, or likely even use? Critiquing technology referenced in submitted posts is what we do for fun around here...

mynameisvlad 4y ago
I am replying to a person’s comment so, yes, of course I’m “focused on this one instance” and replying to what was said. That is, literally, the purpose of replies. I think the critique was not constructive, was dismissive about an entire project, backseat architected, and did all that with absolutely no context on the requirements, limitations, and decisions made. In short, it’s a shit critique and I called it as such.