Removing a credit or a reference is probably the worst way to add succintness to an article.
It's literally saying "the contributions of people whose work I based my work on is less important than the least useful sentence in describing my work".
It's literally saying "the contributions of people whose work I based my work on is less important than the least useful sentence in describing my work".
He just didn't care about other people.
Edit: it looks like Dustin from the same team at Microsoft shares the same hostility https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31284857
I can add back the sentence where I accredit Alacritty for the general, underlying algorithm/idea then, because that's where I heard about it first. There isn't really any other alternative, performant way to implement GPU-accelerated terminals, so I don't think hearing about it again from Casey changed my perception of what the only alternative to Direct2D is, in case it's fundamentally flawed for our purpose which it turned out to be.
There's nothing improper with adding "Edit: credit to the <name of the person> who suggested the solution. While the solution seems trivial, there are certain technical challenges to overcome".
> because that's where I heard about it first.
No. That's not where you heard it first. Otherwise you wouldn't have written "this needs doctoral research on performance" in the original issue.
Edit: I misattributed this quote, you didn't say it.
> I don't think hearing about it again from Casey
There's an actual, verifiable screenshot of your reaction to his words. That was not an "again".
The point of the waiting to edit suggestion is to avoid a bunch of reactionary edits during the most heated period. Immediately implementing every edit demanded of you when different people are demanding different edits all at once seems improper to me and waiting a short period seems a level headed approach. It also avoids the look of just trying to cover everything up the quickest way possible instead focusing on well thought out sincere reactions.
> No. That's not where you heard it first. Otherwise you wouldn't have written "this needs doctoral research on performance" in the original issue.
You've attributed the quote to the wrong person, it was not lhecker who said that.
> There's an actual, verifiable screenshot of your reaction to his words. That was not an "again".
There is nothing in lhecker's response that suggests he hadn't heard of the alternative. His comment argued it should all be able to handled in DirectWrite without using the alternative not that the alternative hadn't been thought of.
Ah, true. I definitely misattributed this statement. For this I apologize.
> His comment argued it should all be able to handled in DirectWrite without using the alternative not that the alternative hadn't been thought of.
His statement was "it isn't worth it" and "we ready doing it via the framework we're using" to only state, a year later, [1] "We actually took the same approach Casey suggested" while insisting that "it doesn't help much".
If he'd heard about this approach before and seen it in, say, Alacritty, he has a very shitty way of showing it.
It might be a good olive branch to extend thanks to cmuratori for trying to push that it was the right architectural choice but it was never about being the source of the idea. In either case it probably is a good idea to credit the other terminals that had already proven the implementation can work prior to all of this even starting though.
(it's bit long-winded but the general message is sound)