10 ms·

He didn't merely say the project "wasn't good", he implied it in a snarky, very unconstructive way. Here's his quote from twitter: >Ever wanted to make sed or

• Dylan16807 14y ago
  It shouldn't matter if it's unconstructive. He's not talking to the author of the code. I still don't see how being snarky, or god forbid considering being snarky, makes you an asshole. It's just some code; he's not insulting anybody.
  • dos1 14y ago
    So you don't take pride or feel a sense of ownership over your code? That would put you in the minority I surmise. Fact: The vast majority of people would take the twitter conversation Heather posted as a personal attack. Not many people are able to separate attacks on their work product from attacks on themselves (for good reason - since I feel like most people derive a sense of pride from their work). I dare say it would also take an asshole to not recognize this fact and make rude comments and not realize someone would be personally offended even though "it's just some code".
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  • Gigablah 14y ago
    Ever wanted to see a bad argument? Read the post by Dylan16807!
    • Dylan16807 14y ago
      As long as you're linking a specific post, go for it. I've made mistakes. But I'm going to hope it's not just a post you disagree with. Just like I hope you don't call code bad because it uses OTB or omits semicolons. It should be failing to solve the problem it sets out to solve, and in an interesting manner. (Note: I have not looked at the code tweeted about.) Edit: Wait how did THIS post get downvoted? I can understand the earlier posts but I can't even imagine what's objectionable about this one.
      • cygx 14y ago
        Don't know, but possibly because you're derailing the discussion. The outrage is not about constructive (or even unconstructive) criticism of the code itself (which appears to be fine): At least one of the guys ridiculed the author and questioned her competence for the sole reason of implementing a subset of the features of GNU find+sed on top of Node.js.
        • Dylan16807 14y ago
          Well then maybe those people should have been mentioned in the article. When I see top-level comments I don't realize I have to read hundreds of comments they are replying to without using the reply button. I was only talking about the examples given up front, which insulted the code, not the author. Thank you for the useful info.
  • chaostheory 14y ago
    Insulting someone's code is like insulting someone's kid. The guy probably feels he put a lot of thought and hard work into it. It's not that hard to give constructive feedback as opposed to being an asshole.
    • dpark 14y ago
      > "Insulting someone's code is like insulting someone's kid." You are way too attached to your code. . . . What these guys said was still extremely rude.
      • chaostheory 14y ago
        I didn't come up with that quote. I believe someone famish like Martin Fowler did a few years back. > You are way too attached to your code. For most people this is subconscious. If you're not, good for you.
        • dpark 14y ago
          Someone like Martin Fowler should have better sense. Probably 75% of code is hideous when it's written. Probably 99.9% is hideous a few years later. Someone who's so attached to their code that they can't accept criticism (even harsh criticism) of it is pretty much guaranteed to be writing crappy code. You'll notice that harthur didn't flip out as if her child was insulted. Instead she asked for constructive feedback, a sign of professional maturity.
          • chaostheory 14y ago
            > Someone like Martin Fowler should have better sense. Probably 75% of code is hideous when it's written. Probably 99.9% is hideous a few years later. Whoever came up with the orig quote does have good sense. I've worked with a lot of people ranging from NASA to new hotness start ups. I would say 95% people would be pissed no matter the skill level if you just made fun of their work as opposed to offering constructive criticism. > Someone who's so attached to their code I'm sure that most people who care about the quality of their work is somewhat attached to their code. > that they can't accept criticism (even harsh criticism) of it is pretty much guaranteed to be writing crappy code The issue at hand isn't that Heather can't accept any sort of criticism. The issue is still that you don't have to be a fucking dick to criticize someone else's work. It's not hard to offer constructive criticism as opposed to just trashing and making fun of something someone worked on for months or even years. > You'll notice that harthur didn't flip out as if her child was insulted. Umm she was crying; not only that - she posted that she cried. I would say she was pretty upset; she just handled herself well despite the circumstances.
  • mnicole 14y ago
    If you make a criticism of someone's ability to do something, you are making a criticism of their intelligence. If a product gets bad marks across the board, are there no consequences to the team that developed it?
  • nollidge 14y ago
    That's fine, but saying "this code makes my eyes bleed" is very obviously meant to demean the human being who wrote the code, not the code itself.
    • Dylan16807 14y ago
      I honestly don't see that. It insults their coding ability, or at least their focus when coding that particular thing, but disparaging a single skill that a person has is not being demeaning to that person. At least in my mind.
      • scott_s 14y ago
        I think most people would find it demeaning to hear it said about their code.
      • jtheory 14y ago
        That's pretty much what demeaning means, though. It's not "a single skill" as if you were telling Torvalds that his juggling skills were crap and he should keep his day job; if someone has enough coding experience that they're releasing OSS on GitHub, coding is quite likely their job (or they're in school to make it their job). So yeah, snarkily saying that the product of someone's career activity makes your eyes bleed (or whatever) is demeaning to them -- i.e., directly attacking their dignity and others' respect for them.
        • Dylan16807 14y ago
          Their dignity should not be dependent on their job area being flawless. Thinking they screwed up on a single hobby project should not cause a loss of respect for the person.
          • jtheory 14y ago
            There's a big gap between "not flawless" and "my eyes are bleeding" or "I can't make this stuff up". Also: "should" != "is", I'm afraid.
  • klawed 14y ago
    Buried beneath the snarkiness, the implied constructive criticism might be along the lines of "don't re-invent the wheel, kid". I looked at Heather's code. It seems pretty tight to me.
  • sageikosa 14y ago
    What a stupid comment! My eyes bleed! (But the author is probably a decent chap).
• MartinCron 14y ago
  in fact, if this is how they apologize it's probably best they don't That's a beautiful bit of writing and thinking, right there :)
• mturmon 14y ago
  > "that's called being an asshole" There's a difference between "being an asshole" and "sometimes acting like an asshole". We all do the second thing sometimes. A snarky comment and a bad apology may be an instance of the second thing. But they don't imply the first. Compare another toxic noun, "racist". There's a difference between "being a racist" and "making a racist comment". If people could apologize for the latter when it happens, understanding that it does not imply the former, the world would be a better place.
  • dos1 14y ago
    > A snarky comment and a bad apology may be an instance of the second thing. But they don't imply the first. Sorry chief, I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. The snarky comment can be forgiven. (although I've since read other tweets/posts from David Cramer and it appears as though he really is that abrasive all the time) By contrast, a bad apology is a clear indication of someone's true nature. If the apology is backhanded or otherwise poor, it implies a lot. If you issue an apology but don't really feel sorry, then you're just doing it to placate others, and you really are a jerk.
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    • fastball 14y ago
      Luckily, Cramer wasn't giving an apology. That post was not apologetic because it was an explanation of a single tweet. If you keep shitting comments that don't reflect the reality of the situation, that makes you the asshole.
      • peterhost 14y ago
        Agreed, asshole :) (or was it the other way around ?) Holly Ass, Twitter, by essence is an assholy thing. What can you expect from someone who has "3500 friends" or "50 000 followers" ? Follow the Holy Shoe of Jerusalem :)
    • 14y ago
• rektide 14y ago
  The effort you spend denouncing them- 116 words v.s. less than 160 characters total in theirs- makes you look like a tosser. Their actions weren't advisable by any measure, but you've certainly demonstrated a willingness to make up your mind about them, based off a number of extremely extremely short pithy statements. Dial down your indignation, friend: help us get rid of this reek.
  • dos1 14y ago
    > Dial down your indignation, friend: help us get rid of this reek. I agree with you and gave you an upvote. Maybe my comments do make me look like a "tosser" - but these people were behaving like bullies, plain and simple. And man, I can't stand that shit. I see it every day. People will go out of their way to make others feel miserable. Or they use their power/standing/influence to pick a fight with someone weaker just because they can.
    • rektide 14y ago
      Steven and Corey have both more or less begged off from even trying to say what they mean- they have simply apologized for introducing volatility, for hurting feelings. I find it outrageously presumptuous to take such short, pithy tweets, and to claim they were made with malice, intending to antagonize, or were in fact bullying. The fact is Nodeites are renowned for rehashing the entrenched. It also, gasp, has callbacks. These people weren't gentle in pointing out a capital example of just these two things. I don't think that makes them bullies or bad people, nor do I guess they even considered the human behind the works nor hardly the work itself: my _guess,_ and indeed, everyone is guessing here, is that they were making a crack on the idea of replacer, as justly emblematic of what Node is renowned for. And although I think one would be a fool to become so polarized in view as these people showed themselves to be, I would much rather we have open channels where such conduct is permitted, where we can be a little low brow, boorish or lively, and express our ruffian selves: I'd rather have a wildness. I prefer tolerance and resilience. I loath the intolerance that says we must sterilize and purify and be of good behavior, must watch ourselves constantly. Harthur talks about feeling like her identity has been injured, wounded forever. Yet here we are condemning and slining insults, armed with the zeal she has given us. Here we are, enacting new moral codes, legislating terms where nothing but support and good manners towards one another will be accepted. She felt that she had not been tolerated, not encouraged, yet the response is to mandate intolerance of another behavior, yes a boorish one, but regardless, just another tripline for ourselves to unintentionally trip over. Let's instead seek discourse- which she did- and failing that, tolerance. Let's not go troll hunting, lest we lay too onerous a minefield for any man to hazard. A girl got caught in the crossfire of polarized communities. She cried. Everyone felt bad, many got indignant and decried other people and other communities for their action or contact with the affair. The internet got more uptight about itself. That, to me, is the absolute losingest situation imaginable, and I'd handily pass out yellow cards to 80% of this topic as contributors towards winding ourselves up, of taking ourselves too seriously, of ascribing way too much levity to an event that was tiny in size, and which we have not been given a codex to understand- it remains a context free situation, one we merely make projections about, without knowing what the real intent was, we just know people tweeted, for whatever reason, because something struck them, and they created, made and shared new content about their experiences. They shared. I don't understand, they haven't explained, I don't think I'd like it even if they did explain it better, but these were people keeping themselves amused, first and foremost. That that would be subject to so much scrutiny, the cause of injury, is itself the most tragic here. We need to be tolerant, and find good, not focus on censoring bad or fretting about our identities, as first Heather did, and now the three authors are likely doing. Sorry for labeling your writing as tosser like, not cool of me. I feel like ascribing intent to what happened is an impossibility, and even with bad intent I'm still very uneasy with censoring, with mandatory good behavior. I beg for de-escalation.