6 ms·
that part really didn’t make sense to me. This is true for all desktop platforms.
by c-c-c-c-c 6mo ago
that part really didn’t make sense to me. This is true for all desktop platforms.
- furyofantares 6mo agoI agree, although I was talking about: Dead silence. Here's what 3 people said (the opposite of silence). Then the meeting went sideways (also the opposite of silence). The silence is the story. WHAT SILENCE?
- avazhi 6mo agoHe immediately said they never did make a decision, so probably that indecision. Having said that, this article feels like AI slop to me. Couldn’t get through it.
- g-b-r 6mo agoJust have a look at the final picture if you're unsure if it's slop
- lynndotpy 6mo agoIn a more generous interpretation, there was silence, _then_ people said something. That makes sense. But "That silence is the story." is still a pretty telling non-sequitr, and it doesn't seem like the kind that comes from sloppy editing. The punchy "Thing. Thing. Thing." is used constantly. We see it constantly in this article: > 852 pages. Win16 API in C. > Message loops. Window procedures. GDI. > One OS, one API, one language, one book. But those are minor sins. But in the end of the article, Snover states that Microsoft pitched C++ in 2012. That's so incorrect! The contents of this blog post are at least partially falsified. Plus, the thesis statement is nonsense: > When a platform can’t answer “how should I build a UI?” in under ten seconds, it has failed its developers. Full stop. "Full stop" is a pretty heavy thing to end a nonsense statement with. How an inanimate software platform can "answer" things is not implicitly obvious, either. Is it a human representative? Are they the docs? Is it through a good UI? The post is about Petzold's / Reccold's "Programming Windows", but it is apparently 852 pages, so that certainly wasn't answered in under 10 seconds either.