pwdisswordfish6

Fortunately, although it is pay-to-play, it's not pay-to-win. Oracle (or any other well-heeled player) can spend half a million or more in legal fees trying to go after a small company, but that doesn't mean that company has to match costs.

That marks attempt #3 here at begging the question.

This is the second instance of an attempt on your part to use circular reasoning so that it might be impossible to argue with you. It's clear now that you're just here for the conflict, and not (sound) resolutions. This is a dead end.

The remark "you might want to reconsider whether your powers of self-diagnosis" is not using "consider" in the same sense that I used it in the comment you're replying to. You are not really asking me to consider anything. You are mirroring the word choice, but the thrust of your comment is an argument that my comment is probably not true, and that it is almost self-invalidating.

Perversely, you are doing exactly the thing that the statement "Consider this: I have a high emotional IQ" is exhorting you not to do, which is to tunnel vision your way to one of the possible outcomes--the one where it isn't true--and then try to reflexively use it to justify the starting position that leads to that outcome. You are failing to consider the counterfactual.

> I never said that

I know. I said it. Why am I having to repeat this?

> what part of your description was condescending

What? I'm not saying my description was condescending. It is a description of your reply. It pinpoints what was condescending about that reply. You are "leaping at the opportunity" to explain "how to human". This is condescending. It would be like if I launched into an explanation about why it's a good idea to shower and maintain good hygiene, as if you needed to be told that body odor can be unpleasant for other people and might make them not want to be around you.

Two straightforward questions. You already dodged one when it was framed as an observation; I'll repeat it again as an explicit question.

1. Do you think that your comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26628064 is nice or shows "respect for others' humanity"?

2. What about your message, or any of the other messages here, exempt them from requiring the sorts of obligatory pleasantries ("good morning"; politeness and courtesy that should be "[written] in words"; etc) that you're so strenuously arguing for as a "baseline expectation"?

(I'm going to pre-emptively call bullshit on any "giving a taste of one's own medicine" response to the latter question. I'm not interested in dishonest answers.)

You're right, it's my quote--where I gave an inline description about what was condescending about it. Since you asked, I repeated it.

> how to human

> Given that you felt the need to say that, you might want to reconsider[...]

You're responding to an anonymous comment on a message board with zero IRL context. Consider your own ability to diagnose here.

Actual problem: not understanding the distinction between a bug report and form meant for "asking others to do something for you".

You're pointing to cases to invalidate the claim as if that claim was supposed to be interpreted to be bracketed by a universal quantifier. It wasn't, and arguing in that way is not particularly insightful.

"You can write a compiler in a weakly typed language that resembles a compiler in a strongly typed language." Happy now?

The point, which you have ignored, is that there are strongly typed languages where the features you're relying on are not present. In fact, this is true of a bunch of the compilers that are among the most widely used in the world--ones that people are using to build projects written in C and C++ and things like the language support baked into IDEs for Java, C#, etc. So the relevant factor is not "strong vs. weak?" but rather those features (structural matching, etc) that you are relying on.

And let's be real, the original comment ("I'd rather put my hand in boiling water than develop a compiler in a dynamic weak typed language"; now flagged) was no more than a drive-by insult.

So you're doubling down on condescendingly explaining how to human. Cool.

Consider this: I have a high emotional IQ and acutely understand whatever lesson you think you're imparting here, I just don't have the kind of bullshit budget required in this context.

Here's the obvious consequence that no one ever seems to get, even with having it explained to them: if I'm going to have to start dropping things on the floor and make some people unhappy, guess who I'm going to choose to be the recipient? All the people most responsible for squandering the resources that were available.

I'll note that you didn't start your response here with pleasantries, and no one else has, either. By leaping at the opportunity to condescendingly explain human behavior, you've slipped into attacking a strawman. Take your passive aggressive yikes elsewhere.

Being delayed by a "good morning" from an oblivious coworker? More than just annoying. (Obligatory "pleasantries" from coworkers who otherwise take glee in making you miserable and obstruct you for sport? Much, much worse.) We're not friends--we're coworkers, at least nominally, and I probably have a stack of shit this high to deal with--that you may or may not be the cause of. How about this for being "nice": don't force me into dealing with your bullshit, against my wishes. Where's your recognition that I'm a human with feelings and needs?

Strong disagreement from here.

I don't want that kind of stuff in bug reports for the same reason that I don't want to have to deal with "hello", "good morning", from coworkers in messenger applications, and I will assume that for your sake you don't want to deal with it either, unless you explicitly say so.

So if this is a requirement for writing and responding to bugs, then you should "say it in words" that that's what you want.

No, you're done.

> language that's already ~30 years old by now

Relevance?

Sounds like a double standard and possibly moving the goalposts. There are strongly typed languages that don't have those features, and compiler codebases that don't use that kind of architecture. Do they get a pass or not?

You know all those jokes that people like Linus make about Real Programmers—the ones who have hair on their chests, etc—you know those are all jokes, right? Jokes in the laughing-at-them sort of way, the way Colbert did it—not something that you're supposed to unironically buy into.

> If someone interested in a compiler doesn't download it, it's not a excuse, it's a filter. Or a warning sign.

You're so invested in gatekeeping that you're confusing the point of research with technofetishism.

Here's what Joe Armstrong had to say in "The Mess We're In":

"I downloaded this program, and I followed the instructions, and it said I didn't have grunt installed! [...Then] I installed grunt, and it said grunt was installed, and then I ran the script that was gonna make my slides... and it said 'Unable to find local grunt'."

Looks like someone needs to go dig up Joe and let him know that the real problem is that there was a mistake in letting him get past the point where he was supposed to be filtered out.

Write a compiler in a strongly typed language, and then remove all the type annotations. This may come as a shock, but this is what a compiler (or any codebase) could look like when developed in a weakly typed language.

You are limited to one *.neocities.org site, otherwise it's $60 per year.

> I swear I didn't see factories-making-factories-making-factories until that thing was published

No? That's a pretty good description of the sort of metaprogramming that Lisp gives you, and Lispers are really enthusiastic about that kind of thing. People will dispute the parallels, but the real difference comes down to:

- non-Lisp languages being significantly less powerful

- Lisp's veneer of respectability

... which shouldn't be all that odd, considering the person who gave us "design patterns" was Dick Gabriel, a Lisper.

At least the "SingletonFactoryWorkerVisitor" programmers use a nomenclature that reflects the ontology the object is supposed to fit into.

Google Reader ≠ RSS.

Hacker News was never good.

That’s right. I use an 18-year-old laptop.

> "crook" [...] Better to just not say anything if you're only parroting buzzwords.

The buzzword of 2020/2021 appears to be "grifter" and its variations.

On topic with the article and related to this is the word "dogwhistle". (The funny thing is that "dogwhistle" can itself be a dogwhistle.) It doesn't get used as much in my experience as "grifter", though, which is so wantonly thrown about nowadays that it may as well have no meaning.

I avoid using both of these words. There are better ways to say it.

> more of these as wikis, or GH repos

The people who live on GitHub are unfortunately unable to recognize any distinction.

That's fine, because it's not exactly clear what "ld" stands for to begin with. If anyone asks, you could just say that the W and E stand for "Weally Efficient".

It genuinely surprises the shit out of me that people haven't created a "middleware" layer that treats GitHub as its backend / source of truth, but everything gets routed through a custom domain. E.g., spin up this glorified reverse proxy on Heroku, and now example.com/bugs is really just example.github.io/bugs, which is a page with all its form actions pointing to the Heroku service acting as a go-between for managing github.com/example/whatever/issues with full backups, etc.

It's not easier than HTTP sans TLS, which is the point that was being made.

What if I write 4.3.2.1.in-addr.arpa. instead?

Isn’t one Twitter horrible enough? Why create another one?