3 ms·
No, some projects can be too ambitious, including even recklessly or dangerously ambitious. But I'd rather hear that judgement from someone with a reputation fo
by gojomo 12y ago
No, some projects can be too ambitious, including even recklessly or dangerously ambitious. But I'd rather hear that judgement from someone with a reputation for appropriate, successful ambitiousness, and with some supporting reasoning.
The grandparent comment comes from a pseudonym linked to no evaluable projects. It offers a costless, totally-generic pooh-poohing of a real project as "too ambitious". But that project is actually shipping code that works, with 126 contributors, many with a known history of contributions in related spheres.
Against that, the comment even uses an appeal to "HN standards"! As if, we should all be discounting this sort of stuff, on its face.
I'd prefer "HN standards" encourage such ambition, backed with code – not casually mock it with a ascii-smiley.
- grayclhn 12y agoI read less negativity into the comment than that.
- pyre 12y ago> But that project is actually shipping code that works I get that this is more than just vaporware, but getting past the vaporware stage doesn't necessarily prove that something isn't too ambitious. When something is attempting to enact a paradigm shift, the final goal is adoption/usage, not just a working/functional product.
- urbit 12y ago+1 - I can't emphasize this too strongly.
- urbit 12y ago+1 - I can't emphasize this too strongly.
- gojomo 12y agoYou seem to be using "too ambitious" as a synonym for "unlikely to succeed". But that's something different. "Too ambitious" implies someone shouldn't even be trying for this goal. That's a corrosive attitude, and I'd like it kept-in-check by a requirement that sources of such negativity show their reasoning/experience/work.
- urbit 12y agoAgain, the contributor list in github is WAY misleading, because it accidentally somehow pulled in all the contributors of the libraries we bundled (eg, libuv). We need to fix this, I think.
- gojomo 12y agoThanks for the clarification; I hadn't noticed that caveat earlier.