4 ms·
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 tit
by 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 agoJerf'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 agoI 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 agoThe 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.