3 ms·

This tired, flamewar-prone argument of gatekeeping new code in C/C++. Oh the irony coming from someone who wrote this some days ago: > One of the highest prior

by hu3 1y ago

This tired, flamewar-prone argument of gatekeeping new code in C/C++. Oh the irony coming from someone who wrote this some days ago: > One of the highest priorities for the HN algorithm is to promote good interactions and discourage bad interactions. The logic is if you have a lot of people bickering with each other, regardless of the topic, it normalizes bad behavior. HN is trying to sustain itself as a forum with great discussions.

yodon 1y ago
I notice you chose to attack me rather than attacking the assertion that memory-safe languages are inherently safer than memory-unsafe languages like C. Yes, you CAN write memory safe code in C. You DO write memory safe code in languages like Java, Python, PHP, and C#. Critically, the maintenance programmer also writes memory safe code when working in a memory safe language. The maintenance programmer is not guaranteed to write memory safe code when working in a language like C. If any of the above is incorrect, I'm interested in learning more.
- hu3 1y ago
  There's nothing to dispute in your assertion, because you're technically correct. However it's just not constructive and repetitive. You're basically walking into a bar and yelling that alcohol is unhealthy.
- dang 1y ago
  What was incorrect (to use your word) in your posts in this thread was your misalignment with the intended spirit of the site. You responded with generic/shallow objections to someone's creative work. That's one of the failure modes of internet discussion, which is why both the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and the Show HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html) ask commenters not to do this. It's true that the repliers crossed into the red as well, but fundamentally that's a healthy immune response going a little too far.
  - yodon 1y ago
    dang - thanks for being the incredible mod that you are. Genuinely hoping you one day write a book or give a talk on effective communication. Your words, even when they amount to "dude, you screwed up", are always informative and inspiring.
    - dang 1y ago
      Thanks for the kind reply! I'm always surprised when people react so nicely to one of those. It lands, and I appreciate it.
dang 1y ago
This response is right on fundamentals (more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45530668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45530668) but unhelpful in approach, and ends up breaking the HN guidelines in its own right. Rather than flaming someone for not responding in the intended HN spirit, and invoking their recent post as a gotcha, it would be better to take that post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45340298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45340298) as evidence that they want the same things that you (and we!) do, and base your response on that. Nearly everyone here wants great discussions; the problem is that we all underestimate the provocations in our own comments, or even just don't see them at all. Meanwhile the provocations in other people's comments often land much harder on us as readers. Say the skew is 10x in each direction—that leads to a 100x distortion. This "100x problem" is probably at the root of most interpersonal glitches here (and not only here). Unfortunately, it seems to be a deep and universal bias.

by hu3 1y ago

yodon 1y ago

I notice you chose to attack me rather than attacking the assertion that memory-safe languages are inherently safer than memory-unsafe languages like C. Yes, you CAN write memory safe code in C. You DO write memory safe code in languages like Java, Python, PHP, and C#. Critically, the maintenance programmer also writes memory safe code when working in a memory safe language. The maintenance programmer is not guaranteed to write memory safe code when working in a language like C. If any of the above is incorrect, I'm interested in learning more.

hu3 1y ago
There's nothing to dispute in your assertion, because you're technically correct. However it's just not constructive and repetitive. You're basically walking into a bar and yelling that alcohol is unhealthy.
dang 1y ago
What was incorrect (to use your word) in your posts in this thread was your misalignment with the intended spirit of the site. You responded with generic/shallow objections to someone's creative work. That's one of the failure modes of internet discussion, which is why both the HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and the Show HN guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html) ask commenters not to do this. It's true that the repliers crossed into the red as well, but fundamentally that's a healthy immune response going a little too far.
- yodon 1y ago
  dang - thanks for being the incredible mod that you are. Genuinely hoping you one day write a book or give a talk on effective communication. Your words, even when they amount to "dude, you screwed up", are always informative and inspiring.
  - dang 1y ago
    Thanks for the kind reply! I'm always surprised when people react so nicely to one of those. It lands, and I appreciate it.

dang 1y ago

This response is right on fundamentals (more at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45530668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45530668) but unhelpful in approach, and ends up breaking the HN guidelines in its own right. Rather than flaming someone for not responding in the intended HN spirit, and invoking their recent post as a gotcha, it would be better to take that post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45340298 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45340298) as evidence that they want the same things that you (and we!) do, and base your response on that. Nearly everyone here wants great discussions; the problem is that we all underestimate the provocations in our own comments, or even just don't see them at all. Meanwhile the provocations in other people's comments often land much harder on us as readers. Say the skew is 10x in each direction—that leads to a 100x distortion. This "100x problem" is probably at the root of most interpersonal glitches here (and not only here). Unfortunately, it seems to be a deep and universal bias.