Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Day The Standard Library Died (2020)

cor3ntin.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–14 of 14 posts

Re: The Day The Standard Library Died (2020)

#11

Post by Dylan16807 »

Operyl wrote: post #10
Dylan16807 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to link to a specific part of an article, though. And in that context I wouldn't really call it editorializing. URLs make this harder than it should be.

In the case of HN, it’s explicitly against submission guidelines and frowned upon.

"Editorializing" is against the guidelines.

Trying to submit a subsection of a bigger work, with the closest it has to a title, is perfectly acceptable... if it has its own URL. If it doesn't have a URL, then you're screwed.

One of the few benefits of tweet threads: you can link a particular tweet.

Re: The Day The Standard Library Died (2020)

#13

Post by Operyl »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #11
Operyl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of HN, it’s explicitly against submission guidelines and frowned upon.

"Editorializing" is against the guidelines. Trying to submit a subsection of a bigger work, with the closest it has to a title, is perfectly acceptable... if it has its own URL. If it doesn't have a URL, then you're screwed. One of the few benefits of tweet threads: you can link a particular tweet.

I think we might be confused, originally the title was not “ The Day The Standard Library Died” on HN. dang changed it back to that title. It was a completely different title, submitted originally: “ "It is currently faster to launch PHP to execute a regex than using std:regex"” which is what I’m saying was editorialized.

Re: The Day The Standard Library Died (2020)

#14

Post by Dylan16807 »

Operyl wrote: post #13
Dylan16807 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Editorializing" is against the guidelines. Trying to submit a subsection of a bigger work, with the closest it has to a title, is perfectly acceptable... if it has its own URL. If it doesn't have a URL, then you're screwed. One of the few benefits of tweet threads: you can link a particular tweet.

I think we might be confused, originally the title was not “ The Day The Standard Library Died” on HN. dang changed it back to that title. It was a completely different title, submitted originally: “ "It is currently faster to launch PHP to execute a regex than using std:regex"” which is what I’m saying was editorialized.

The title was a direct quote pointing to a specific part of the article.

If the article had been a series of tweets, they could have linked to that tweet and it would have been fine and not been editorializing.

That's why I'm iffy on calling it editorializing. Even if it is, I blame URLs for not allowing the equivalent of linking a specific tweet from a series.

It's especially bad when there's a news roundup article talking about 3 or 4 different things, and you can't just submit the third one with the title of that section.

Post reply on HN