3 ms·

Good Lord. Someone else independently came up with something similar to what we came up with a while ago and didn't credit us. How sad. And by the way, they

by bborud 3y ago

Good Lord. Someone else independently came up with something similar to what we came up with a while ago and didn't credit us. How sad. And by the way, they are idiots and we are so much smarter than them. Look, we even wrote a paper.

JackFr 3y ago
Actually read the article. That is neither the point the author makes, nor the tone he takes.
- lijok 3y ago
  > Turns out, their concurrency control is a poor-man's version of Left-Right > Obviously, it's a bit sad when due credit is not given where it should be, but smart readers have added to the blog's comments and on hackernews that what is being described is indeed Left-Right (or a simpler but not as powerful version of it). > This is ok because the good stuff will be re-discovered several times over, and Left-Right is certainly one of those gold nuggets.
- gpderetta 3y ago
  IMHO the tone was quite annoying and overshadowed any good point the article could have about the complexity of proving concurrent algos. But slightly on a tangent, re: the QuestDB algo, wouldn't hazard pointers solve the concurrent map problem in a cleaner way and avoid a globally contended reader counter?
- bborud 3y ago
  That's exactly the tone he takes.
greatgib 3y ago
Indeed, and even worse, lots of people probably used the same algorithm (that is quite basic in the end) for a lot of things before without making a lot of fuss but "we did an academic paper about it, so we consider ourselves as the inventor of it". "How come we don't get credits for being genius".
opportune 3y ago
Yeah, I really want to read this guy’s stuff because he’s definitely knowledgeable on the topic and I also work on high performance distributed computing. The way this is written… sheesh it’s just insufferable. I’m just going to tell myself it’s some kind of Swiss cultural thing not translating well to English
mrkeen 3y ago
Read past the intro. > it's ok to re-discover existing algorithms, it just validates the usefulness and correctness of such algorithms, and it also validates that you, as a researcher, are on the right track to making important discoveries in that field. > But what is not ok is to read other people's paper and code, make a stripped down version of it, claim it as your own, and after being so stripped down it is not correct anymore, claim that this is correct and lock-free. > But my feelings don't matter, what matters is that when applied to generic code (or even non-generic code), the technique described in the Peredvizhnikov Engine is neither correct nor lock-free. I thought the jab at HN was a bit rough: > I blame hackernews and its sensationalist take on the world of Computer Science, because it gives voice to anyone who shouts loud enough But then again, the top comment as posting this didn't read the article.

by bborud 3y ago

JackFr 3y ago

Actually read the article. That is neither the point the author makes, nor the tone he takes.

lijok 3y ago
> Turns out, their concurrency control is a poor-man's version of Left-Right > Obviously, it's a bit sad when due credit is not given where it should be, but smart readers have added to the blog's comments and on hackernews that what is being described is indeed Left-Right (or a simpler but not as powerful version of it). > This is ok because the good stuff will be re-discovered several times over, and Left-Right is certainly one of those gold nuggets.
gpderetta 3y ago
IMHO the tone was quite annoying and overshadowed any good point the article could have about the complexity of proving concurrent algos. But slightly on a tangent, re: the QuestDB algo, wouldn't hazard pointers solve the concurrent map problem in a cleaner way and avoid a globally contended reader counter?
bborud 3y ago
That's exactly the tone he takes.

greatgib 3y ago

Indeed, and even worse, lots of people probably used the same algorithm (that is quite basic in the end) for a lot of things before without making a lot of fuss but "we did an academic paper about it, so we consider ourselves as the inventor of it". "How come we don't get credits for being genius".

opportune 3y ago

Yeah, I really want to read this guy’s stuff because he’s definitely knowledgeable on the topic and I also work on high performance distributed computing. The way this is written… sheesh it’s just insufferable. I’m just going to tell myself it’s some kind of Swiss cultural thing not translating well to English

mrkeen 3y ago

Read past the intro. > it's ok to re-discover existing algorithms, it just validates the usefulness and correctness of such algorithms, and it also validates that you, as a researcher, are on the right track to making important discoveries in that field. > But what is not ok is to read other people's paper and code, make a stripped down version of it, claim it as your own, and after being so stripped down it is not correct anymore, claim that this is correct and lock-free. > But my feelings don't matter, what matters is that when applied to generic code (or even non-generic code), the technique described in the Peredvizhnikov Engine is neither correct nor lock-free. I thought the jab at HN was a bit rough: > I blame hackernews and its sensationalist take on the world of Computer Science, because it gives voice to anyone who shouts loud enough But then again, the top comment as posting this didn't read the article.