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

Left-Pad (2024)

azerkoculu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 224 posts

Re: Left-Pad (2024)

#161

Post by bayindirh »

nindalf wrote: post #159
bayindirh wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's consider an example about a tangible phenomena: Gaussian Integration, Quantum Entanglement, Crystalline Structure Formation in Alloyed Metals with Heat Treatment, Combustion Dynamics in a Gasoline Engine, etc. Let's put the same sentence: "I'd love to explain to you, but if you haven't read $SOURCE_MATERIAL, you wouldn't understand it anyway". Does it sound pompous and insufferable?

Look mate you're a fan of this writing, that's fine. I respect your opinion. Let's agree to disagree.

I'm not a fan, but accept them as they are.

Of course we can agree to disagree. I'm not trying to win anything, but just express my perspective.

Have a nice day!

Politely pushes forward a freshly brewed mug of tea across the counter.

Re: Left-Pad (2024)

#162

Post by skrebbel »

nindalf wrote: post #147
bayindirh wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are citing something which changed their life significantly, and leaving pointers to the same thing if you're interested (or need further explanation). If getting wisdom from others is not your thing, I can respect that, but low-key insulting them for leaving you pointers for a more enlightened place is rude. You can instead say "I don't understand why Al-Ghazali relates to this", and that would be completely OK…

The author made an implicit assumption, and you're making the same one, that they're filled with wisdom received straight from al-Ghazali. Firstly, only wankers act like they're wise and their audience isn't. Secondly, they said "haven't read al-Ghazali yet ", implying that it's only a matter of time before everyone reads him. Lastly, it's fine to quote someone but you need to explain how it's relevant to the convers…

Fwiw I don't completely agree with you but I appreciate your enthusiasm for the word "wanker" in this thread.

Re: Left-Pad (2024)

#164

Post by skrebbel »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #59
skrebbel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok fair! In that case I actually agree with his stance I think. I can understand how isaacs messed this up in what must've been a stressful situation, but it's hard to blame the author for it indeed, if he was just running the commands provided.

I mean if you’re the CEO of a package manager then you should probably have thought that one through a little bit more? Maybe ask one of the engineers what would happen?

Yeah indeed. Though I can appreciate the screwup. I mean, there was a heated thing going on, lawyers on one side and bad community PR on the other and NPM was caught in the middle. Couldnt backtrack on their maybe not so smart choice to give the "kik" package to Kik Messenger, and maybe hadn't thought through the consequences of encouraging the author to just delete all their packages. I disagree that that means they're "kids in suits" like some comments here suggest. It can just as well be an honest mistake made under pressure. People make mistakes sometimes! There's plenty precedence of mistakes by the NPM team but they also got a whole lot of stuff right!

But I do agree now that the author isn't really to blame.

Re: Left-Pad (2024)

#165

Post by nkrisc »

bartread wrote: post #144
nkrisc wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s anti-social is unilaterally making your code dependent on someone’s package and then getting mad at them when they choose to remove it. This whole problem was trivially avoidable, and people get mad at him because they were too lazy to avoid it.

They weren't too lazy to avoid it. Depending on other peoples' packages was actively encouraged within the JS community during that period, and the perceived benefits of doing so were loudly trumpeted.

And if you did without due diligence of the downsides, you have only yourself to blame.

Lots of people made a big mistake, they found out the hard way. Lesson learned.

Re: Left-Pad (2024)

#166

Post by hermannj314 »

akoculu wrote: post #115
tkiolp4 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We westerns do the know much about the Socrates from the eastern side of the world. I can only imagine people from there know who al-Ghazali was just like we know who Sartre was. So, im gonna try and read something by al-Ghazali.

Let me explain myself on this; When this happened, people started making assumptions. A few of them: 1. I’m irrational 2. I’m angry 3. I’m greedy They came to one of these conclusions, based on how they see themselves in the same position. I can be of course one of these three in some other situations, but in the left pad incident, I done all purely with my heart, to stick to my values and principles which was behind…

I bought the Alchemy of Happiness because of that sentence in your post. I always pay attention when someone recommends an author so earnestly.

Re: Left-Pad (2024)

#167

Post by akoculu »

hermannj314 wrote: post #166
akoculu wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me explain myself on this; When this happened, people started making assumptions. A few of them: 1. I’m irrational 2. I’m angry 3. I’m greedy They came to one of these conclusions, based on how they see themselves in the same position. I can be of course one of these three in some other situations, but in the left pad incident, I done all purely with my heart, to stick to my values and principles which was behind…

I bought the Alchemy of Happiness because of that sentence in your post. I always pay attention when someone recommends an author so earnestly.

so happy to hear this! I hope you enjoy the reading. Also, feel free to check out the 4 hours long audio lecture on the book. It's really good!

Re: Left-Pad (2024)

#168

Post by IshKebab »

Lerc wrote: post #126
IshKebab wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Libc implementations have a very clear scope, clear enough that you can point to the specification. That is their 'one thing' do what that spec says. No you can't get out of it my just saying the "one thing" is to do what the spec says. Who decided what's in the spec? Would Eclipse be fine if someone just wrote a spec for it?

It doesn't matter who decided what's in the spec. What matters is that you decided to implement it to a high standard. It's usefulness to others will be related to what they think of the spec. Nobody has to use your tool, but it's good for everyone to know exactly what the tool is. Eclipse would be fine if it had a spec, committing to implementing that might be a task to arduous for some. A full spec would also lay b…

So the Unix philosophy doesn't apply if you have a written specification for you program? That's a pretty out-there view. I don't see why having a spec is related to what the Unix philosophy is trying to achieve.

Re: Left-Pad (2024)

#169

Post by IshKebab »

freehorse wrote: post #74
IshKebab wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "unix philosophy" is a useless philosophy - perhaps worse than useless even - because "one thing" is not well defined, so in practice it adds nothing and just leads to arguments. You could say that Eclipse does "one thing" - being an IDE platform - but I don't think anyone thinks that's what the Unix devs meant. Similarly I don't think they meant for people to write libraries that contain one 11-line function. Th…

> because "one thing" is not well defined That's what a philosophy is, gives you some general guideline and you have to use your thinking to figure out how to apply it in specific circumstances. It does not substitute that thinking neither does it prevent stupid choices, it helps guide you in a higher/strategic level. It is not responsible for people making stupid decisions.

Sure but my point is that the Unix philosophy is so ambiguous that it leads to more confusion than it helps.

Stating it in a way that makes the ambiguity obvious - "don't make your program do too much" - reveals how little value it contains.

Post reply on HN