lbrandy

11 ms·

61.
by lbrandy 12y ago
What I mean is that (and again, I know this is a gross generalization), on average, experienced engineers new to C++11 tend to be pretty anti-auto and tend to soften their stance on `auto` over time.
62.
by lbrandy 12y ago
Ah yes, the type inference argument. I give the onboarding here for new hires about C++ and so I get some form of this objection (and the subsequent argument) every two weeks like clockwork. Here's what I say (feedback welcome): 1. Som
63.
by lbrandy 12y ago
So I woke this morning to the surreal email from Daniel @ hn claiming that I had invented (errr... Discovered?) the "show hn" style post. As I said in the quoted reply, from what I recall, it was just a play on "ask hn".
64.
by lbrandy 12y ago
Wrong again, my friend. At no point did I claim you were wrong simply -because- you used a fallacy. I had other, better, reasons for that. You are bad at this and I've become bored.
65.
by lbrandy 12y ago
> If you are not interested in it, then you find it not interesting. Equivocation fallacy. Can't say you weren't warned. > This is the least interesting conversation I've ever had. It's difficult to have an interes
66.
by lbrandy 12y ago
Again, read closer. I did not complain that it wasn't interesting. I said I wasn't interested [in considering] such advice. The use of the same root word is only interesting (uh oh) to those in the business of equivocation fallaci
67.
by lbrandy 12y ago
I didn't do any of that. Read closer.
68.
by lbrandy 12y ago
Unless my mom or dad recently signed up for HN, I'm not terribly interested in any of this paternalistic (and patronizing) advice on how I should spend my life and time.
69.
by lbrandy 12y ago
It's amazing how often the cranks and pseudoscientists in math, evolution, 9/11 conspiracy-theories, and global warming turn out to be engineers.
70.
by lbrandy 12y ago
As I understand this, this is an easy but still explicit concurrency construction, which is not what haxl does. It's easy to imagine how something like the toy example of friend-list-intersection could be converted to explicit concurre
71.
by lbrandy 12y ago
Part of the beauty is that the actual way IO (note: in this version, IO here means 'reads from the network', almost always) is scheduled is abstracted away such that we could go with either approach w/o impacting client code.
72.
by lbrandy 12y ago
Ah, my favorite question. We previously had a custom DSL and it outgrew it's DSL-ness. The DSL was really good at one thing (implicit concurrency and scheduling io), and bad at everything else (cpu, memory, debugging, tooling). The pre
73.
by lbrandy 12y ago
Hi. I'm one of the engineers who has worked on this so if anyone has any specific questions I can help answer and/or get someone to answer. As said by @nbm, we also have a blog post up: https://code.facebook.com/po
74.
by lbrandy 12y ago
I had a problem so I decided to use versioning, now I have a combinatorially exploding number of problems.
75.
by lbrandy 12y ago
This statement contains no information. Yes, at some point between now and the heat death of the universe, the stock prices of technology companies is very likely to go down. This is not only information-free, it's also not a contraria
76.
by lbrandy 13y ago
> Is X not enough? Nope, it's not, for all X.
77.
by lbrandy 13y ago
Ha. I wrote the blog post mentioned in this article that started this. As pointed out, this is an old repost(1), but perhaps interestingly (at least at a meta level) is that this is all actually HN's fault. When I first saw this thread
78.
by lbrandy 13y ago
PHP is a "crumbling foundation" in exactly the same way DOS, Windows, COBOL, and C and C++ were, are, "crumbling foundations". I don't see how you are disagreeing with me. You are proving the point. You aren't
79.
by lbrandy 13y ago
> I am baffled as to why you'd build your castle atop a crumbling foundation. Because perfect is not the enemy of the good? Because "build atop a crumbling foundation" has demonstrated time and again to be, by far, the mos
80.
by lbrandy 13y ago
Another fun fact: Europeans were more likely to answer correctly about evolution than the earth going round the sun.
81.
by lbrandy 13y ago
Indeed. Sorry OP, your solution: (1) avoids best practice (RAII) using... (2) a flawed rationale (ignoring the existence of compiler optimizations)... (3) without measurement to demonstrate the supposed flaw in the best practice (which woul
82.
by lbrandy 13y ago
You're committing an equivocation fallacy and (s)he's allowed to point that out.
83.
by lbrandy 13y ago
> When someone else gets richer and you stay the same (or increase at a slower rate), you're worse off. The increased average wealth/income increases demand and makes things more expensive for you. I'm pretty sure you just
84.
by lbrandy 13y ago
Is this a clever meta-troll? Or are you actually taking the title seriously? It should be obvious that the title itself is part of the self-parody. The whole thing is a giant exercise in reductio ad absurdum. In fact, the 'joke' o
85.
by lbrandy 13y ago
> for every article about the tech backlash, there's a top-rated HN comment dismissing... That's not even a little true. > ...dismissing the whole thing as a cheap ploy for page views. Strawman. I didn't dismiss anythi
86.
by lbrandy 13y ago
Say what you want about tech-workers sense of entitlement, or the local's misdirected anger, but I think we can all agree that this nonsense is great for sfgate's page views. And they clearly know it. They just keep publishing the
87.
by lbrandy 13y ago
Your comment is good and worth reading, but your opening line is unfortunate especially in light of what happened in the 15 minutes following. Just remove that line. I won't tell anyone.
88.
by lbrandy 13y ago
Blaming tech workers for misguided public policy is the kind of awful thinking that drives votes that leads to bad public policy. I'd like to see HN do better.
89.
by lbrandy 13y ago
Why can't we make an identical argument against all forms of medical research? Should we also stop cancer research?
90.
by lbrandy 13y ago
This isn't a serious objection and this line of thinking is fundamentally flawed. You could say the exact same about the internet or the automobile or the MRI. It only solves the problem of "the elite".

More ›