11–20 of 138 posts
If an HN post with 10 upvotes makes your site go down, do you really have the right to tell people how to write code?
The above comes across as outright dismissive.
If an HN post with 10 upvotes makes your site go down, do you really have the right to tell people how to write code?
2 things: 1.) that's more a statement of the hardware than the software, and they may be running on a tight budget (I have no idea b/c I can't see the site). 2.) If it has 10 upvotes, then that probably means that a significantly higher # of people are trying to view the site so they can decide whether or not to vote, which is not a trivial situation if you aren't prepared for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having an insight into one area of computing doesn't make you an expert in all areas of computing.
deleted b/c brigading
As for this Lisp scripting site, for all I care the author could've shared the information via a Pastebin site and I would've got the same value out of it.
When I opened the page, I honestly thought CSS failed to load. But then I looked at the first line of the page source: I think they really shouldn't tell us what is now an acceptable scripting language if they still consider that design and that doctype acceptable in 2016.
This is sickening-grade bikeshedding. Next time, spare us, and say it to your rubber duck instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
deleted b/c brigading
I feel as though this is at least somewhat relevant: http://motherfuckingwebsite.com
Archived version from 11th of March: https://web.archive.org/web/20160311062403/http://fare.tunes...
2. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:LWgWzFI...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
deleted b/c brigading
Consider if I was an expert in databases. Why would the appearance of a site dedicated to databases matter? It'd be completely unrelated to the topic I'd be sharing information on, and time I could spend improving the site could be time I spend improving my knowledge even further. As for this Lisp scripting site, for all I care the author could've shared the information via a Pastebin site and I would've got the same…
[0]: http://piumarta.com/index.html
[1]: http://cbloom.com/
[2]: http://iquilezles.org/ (okay, this one doesn't look that bad in retrospect)
When I opened the page, I honestly thought CSS failed to load. But then I looked at the first line of the page source: I think they really shouldn't tell us what is now an acceptable scripting language if they still consider that design and that doctype acceptable in 2016.
This is sickening-grade bikeshedding. Next time, spare us, and say it to your rubber duck instead.
I'd always laughed at "developers" that can't even arrange their own websites properly and still try to educate us about what's acceptable and what is not.
Don't know a thing about web design? Use a ready-made blogging platform then, not a school-grade HTML4 style-less nonsense. No one forces you to roll your own solution every single time. But heck, even a simple Bootstrap-based page would be much more readable.
Seriously, it reminded me of my very first HTML page made in school in 2004 when I knew nothing of it. The only difference is that I omitted the doctype altogether back then.
P.S. HN thinks that I'm "submitting too fast", so it took me about an hour to wait for an ability to reply.