4 ms·
> these articles are annoying You’re being quite negative about a well-researched article full of info most have never seen. It’s not a crime to write up detai
by pradn 2y ago
> these articles are annoying
You’re being quite negative about a well-researched article full of info most have never seen. It’s not a crime to write up details that don’t generally affect most people.
A more generous take would be that this article is of primarily historical interest.
- ratmeadow 2y agoYou are right, it was overly negative, which was not nice. Read it as a half-rant then. These types of articles are my pet peeve for some reason.
- motorest 2y ago> You’re being quite negative about a well-researched article full of info most have never seen. I don't think this is true. OP is right: > These articles are annoying because they try to sound smart by going through generally useless technicalities the average programmer shouldn't even be considering in the first place. Dereferencing a null pointer is undefined behavior. Any observation beyond this at best an empirical observarion from running a specific implementation which may or may not comply with the standard. Any article making any sort of claim about null pointer dereferencing beyond stating it's undefined behavior is clearly poorly researched and not thought all the way through.
- pradn 2y agoI think you do point to a real issue. The "falsehoods programmers believe about X" genre can be either a) actual things a common programmer is likely to believe b) things a common programmer might not be be knowledgeable enough to believe. This article is closer to category b. But the category a ones are most useful, because they dispel myths one is likely to encounter in real, practical settings. Good examples of category a articles are those about names, times, and addresses. The distinction is between false knowledge and unknown unknowns, to put it somewhat crudely.