3 ms·

@dang: I'm not sure exactly when this was posted since it seems to have no date, but it's at least (2022) per HN's link from that year: https://news.ycombinator

by jerf 1y ago

@dang: I'm not sure exactly when this was posted since it seems to have no date, but it's at least (2022) per HN's link from that year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31396861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31396861 I mention this because this is definitely the sort of content that can age poorly. I have no direct experience, I've never so much as touched Julia.

tokai 1y ago
It cites an example from 2024 so the text has definitely been updated since 2022.
- dang 1y ago
  Usually when an article is substantively the same but has been updated, we use the original year. I've put 2022 in the title now. The previous HN thread: Correctness and composability bugs in the Julia ecosystem - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31396861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31396861 - May 2022 (407 comments) Edit: since there are (again? I seem to remember this last time) complaints about the title being a bit too baity, I've pilfered that previous title for this thread as well
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - cs702 1y ago
    @dang, thank you for doing that. When I posted the OP, I considered changing the title, but decided not to editorialize it, per the guidelines.
- Alexander-Barth 1y ago
  The incorrect example of julia's documentation was fixed 2021: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/commit/f31ef767ef9cb0eb1de04d23e2e9e1ac765869b3 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/commit/f31ef767ef9cb0eb1d... As an experiment, I would be interested to see if somebody would make a 1-based python list-like data structure (or a 0-based R array), to check how many 3rd party (or standard library) function would no longer work.
add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
We really don't need all the hall monitoring here, it's lame when you see a submission has comments but then it's meta stuff like complaints about dates and titles.
- jerf 1y ago
  "This Is A Really Cool Insect" doesn't really need (1998) in it, but for things like deficiencies of programming language it's helpful to know when the article comes from. "C++ Really Sucks (1995)" is a very different article from "C++ Really Sucks (2025)", and has very different takeaways for the reader.
- refulgentis 1y ago
  Jerf's been here for 17 years, me, 16 years. I've seen this article several times, and I'm sure Jerf has as well. Our instinct, with years of being here, is it isn't a good fit for HN, at least at its current age and as labelled. It is not conducive to healthy discussion to have an aged[1] blanket dismissal of a language coupled to an assertion that saying "the issues looked fixed?" is denial of people's lived experience. [1] We can infer it was written in 2021, as the newest issue they created is from then, and they avowed never to use the language again.
- dang 1y ago
  I don't think 'hall monitoring' is fair here - it's standard for HN titles to include the year that an article dates from, and it's standard for users to point out when such a year hasn't been added to the title yet.
- wk_end 1y ago
  The culture of "hall monitoring" is one of the best things about HN, IMO. It's one of the few places on the internet where people - including/not just the mods - care about maintaining a high quality of discourse.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

by jerf 1y ago

tokai 1y ago

It cites an example from 2024 so the text has definitely been updated since 2022.

dang 1y ago
Usually when an article is substantively the same but has been updated, we use the original year. I've put 2022 in the title now. The previous HN thread: Correctness and composability bugs in the Julia ecosystem - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31396861 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31396861 - May 2022 (407 comments) Edit: since there are (again? I seem to remember this last time) complaints about the title being a bit too baity, I've pilfered that previous title for this thread as well
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- cs702 1y ago
  @dang, thank you for doing that. When I posted the OP, I considered changing the title, but decided not to editorialize it, per the guidelines.
Alexander-Barth 1y ago
The incorrect example of julia's documentation was fixed 2021: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/commit/f31ef767ef9cb0eb1de04d23e2e9e1ac765869b3 https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/commit/f31ef767ef9cb0eb1d... As an experiment, I would be interested to see if somebody would make a 1-based python list-like data structure (or a 0-based R array), to check how many 3rd party (or standard library) function would no longer work.

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago

We really don't need all the hall monitoring here, it's lame when you see a submission has comments but then it's meta stuff like complaints about dates and titles.

jerf 1y ago
"This Is A Really Cool Insect" doesn't really need (1998) in it, but for things like deficiencies of programming language it's helpful to know when the article comes from. "C++ Really Sucks (1995)" is a very different article from "C++ Really Sucks (2025)", and has very different takeaways for the reader.
refulgentis 1y ago
Jerf's been here for 17 years, me, 16 years. I've seen this article several times, and I'm sure Jerf has as well. Our instinct, with years of being here, is it isn't a good fit for HN, at least at its current age and as labelled. It is not conducive to healthy discussion to have an aged[1] blanket dismissal of a language coupled to an assertion that saying "the issues looked fixed?" is denial of people's lived experience. [1] We can infer it was written in 2021, as the newest issue they created is from then, and they avowed never to use the language again.
dang 1y ago
I don't think 'hall monitoring' is fair here - it's standard for HN titles to include the year that an article dates from, and it's standard for users to point out when such a year hasn't been added to the title yet.
wk_end 1y ago
The culture of "hall monitoring" is one of the best things about HN, IMO. It's one of the few places on the internet where people - including/not just the mods - care about maintaining a high quality of discourse.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]