Good Lord. Someone else independently came up with something similar to what we came up with a while ago and didn't credit us. How sad. And by the way, they are idiots and we are so much smarter than them. Look, we even wrote a paper.
That is neither the point the author makes, nor the tone he takes.
> Obviously, it's a bit sad when due credit is not given where it should be, but smart readers have added to the blog's comments and on hackernews that what is being described is indeed Left-Right (or a simpler but not as powerful version of it).
> This is ok because the good stuff will be re-discovered several times over, and Left-Right is certainly one of those gold nuggets.
But slightly on a tangent, re: the QuestDB algo, wouldn't hazard pointers solve the concurrent map problem in a cleaner way and avoid a globally contended reader counter?
> it's ok to re-discover existing algorithms, it just validates the usefulness and correctness of such algorithms, and it also validates that you, as a researcher, are on the right track to making important discoveries in that field.
> But what is not ok is to read other people's paper and code, make a stripped down version of it, claim it as your own, and after being so stripped down it is not correct anymore, claim that this is correct and lock-free.
> But my feelings don't matter, what matters is that when applied to generic code (or even non-generic code), the technique described in the Peredvizhnikov Engine is neither correct nor lock-free.
I thought the jab at HN was a bit rough:
> I blame hackernews and its sensationalist take on the world of Computer Science, because it gives voice to anyone who shouts loud enough
But then again, the top comment as posting this didn't read the article.