4 ms·
> You've already dismissed my expertise. That's pretty rich, since you were the one who jumped in to dismiss others'. > you are a hardware engineer, not a sof
by notacoward 3y ago
> You've already dismissed my expertise.
That's pretty rich, since you were the one who jumped in to dismiss others'.
> you are a hardware engineer, not a software engineer
Incorrect. I've merely worked close to the hardware enough to understand why these things matter. Someone has to support the abstraction on which people like you depend, which requires understanding both the abstraction and the domain where it doesn't exist yet. BTW that's why kernel folks don't rely on your abstraction; that would be a circular dependency.
I suggest that this whole fracas could have been avoided if you weren't so prone to make assumptions (including that one about me), over-generalize from your own experience, and meet any disagreement with ever-increasing levels of condescension. I'm sure you're good at what you do, but try to accept that others are also good at what they do and got that way by learning about things you consider irrelevant or exotic. All I was trying to do before you decided to play "I'm smarter" was share some of that information for the next generation of system programmers.
- jcranmer 3y ago> That's pretty rich, since you were the one who jumped in to dismiss others'. Where did I do that? You were the one to accuse me of "you suppose the authors spent their time writing that for no reason?", to which I directly responded that no, I did not. My goal was to produce a smaller, more concise comment that could be reasonably offered up as something that "every programmer should know" (with particular emphasis on the word "every"), which by its very nature, ought to be incomplete.