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

Writing your own BEAM

martin.janiczek.cz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: Writing your own BEAM

#61

Post by lukego »

macintux wrote: post #2

Now I'm curious whether Joe Armstrong's original Prolog implementation of the VM is available anywhere, but I doubt it.

Joe used to have all that code in his world-readable NFS-mounted home directory. He would just create a new directory for every idea or project. Take it with him from one computer to the next.

I hope that's preserved and one day published as e.g. the old MIT AI lab file system snapshots were.

(Robert Virding or Bjärne Däcker might well have a copy of the Prolog code to share if asked nicely.)

Re: Writing your own BEAM

#62

Post by jabbywocker »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #33
jabbywocker wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wasn’t an ass about it. And the people who don’t know what BEAM is can easily google their way to more information than they’d ever be able to get from a comment here. Edit: I will say that’s a better take. It’s at least blatant about it being the personal attack you intended it to be instead of passive aggressively couching it behind the pretense of caring about community. If you want to be shitty to people, just…

Oh you made an edit. You're looking at where I told someone not be rude, and you're interpreting that as a personal attack from me? Because I "want to be shitty"? No. And the mention of community is not a pretense. I want them to recognize that a lot of qualified people don't in fact already know that specific thing. (This is separate from how easy it is to google.) Also, if you're calling out personal attacks, the w…

> You're looking at where I told someone not be rude

That’s just it, you didn’t tell them not to be rude. You hid behind nebulous shunning of “gatekeeping”.

>I want them to recognize that a lot of qualified people don't in fact already know that specific thing

Again, you didn’t actually do that though, did you? Instead you used the term colloquially meant to signal they are creating a “hostile” environment

> Also, if you're calling out personal attacks, the way they used the word "disgraceful"

I’m distinctly not calling out personal attacks, I literally just gave you a thumbs up for doing it instead of taking the virtue signaling finger wagging approach you previously used.

Re: Writing your own BEAM

#63

Post by DrewADesign »

Jtsummers wrote: post #48
DrewADesign wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly every personal blog post submitted here written for people that use a less-mainstream tool/environment/language draws aggressively obtuse comments by people mad that the author didn’t anticipate their lack of knowledge.

There have been math and CS paper submissions where people complained that the papers lacked a complete course on set theory or some CS theory concept the paper relied on. It's a weird thing to do, but apparently popular.

I think it’s an insecurity response— lashing out to distract themselves from feeling needlessly embarrassed for encountering something new or getting confused about something.

Re: Writing your own BEAM

#66

Post by hatefulheart »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #29
jabbywocker wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He wasn’t an ass about it. And the people who don’t know what BEAM is can easily google their way to more information than they’d ever be able to get from a comment here. Edit: I will say that’s a better take. It’s at least blatant about it being the personal attack you intended it to be instead of passive aggressively couching it behind the pretense of caring about community. If you want to be shitty to people, just…

"I’m sorry this is hacker news and hackers know that BEAM is the Erlang VM, no introduction or explanation needed." is being an ass to a lot of people.

Hey Dylan, you’re being an ass.

Their tone was disgraceful, let me explain by giving you an example of how posts should be made.

“Hey! This looks interesting, quick search on Google didn’t explain what the BEAM is as well as I would like, can someone let me know what this is about in layman’s terms?”

This is inviting people to talk about the topic at hand. It puts the responsibility of knowing something squarely on the person who wants that information and it’s generally pleasant.

How the parent decided to phrase his desire for being spoon fed information was in fact disgraceful.

Re: Writing your own BEAM

#67

Post by depr »

themafia wrote: post #55
depr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When can we be done with these cheap comments? It has really become tiring to have a comment tree on every HN post for people who don't know what the article is about. As the author often didn't submit their own article it is just a complaint with no possible resolution. Instead of taking a few seconds to find out what the article is about and maybe even clarifying it for your fellow readers, you are taking that time…

> It has really become tiring to have a comment tree on every HN post Has it actually? Why is this "tiring?" > When can we be done with these cheap comments? Do what most other people did. Write a cheap reply. > you are taking that time to write a comment that only detracts from a possible conversation. Just click the little [-]. > maybe you just close it and move on. Ironic.

You do have a point there. I did forget about the [-].

However, I read the comments in hopes they are interesting. If we have a culture where the "I don't know what this thing is"-type comment is popular, people will post those comments more and more. This leads other people to spend their time replying to it, instead of engaging with the content of the article. In other words, it distracts other commenters, who might otherwise have contributed something good.

Second, I think having low value comments is undesirable by itself. We could all start posting "First!" on articles, and everyone who hates that can simply minimize them. I think you can see why that would not be great. We can argue whether this is a low-value comment but I already did that in my original reply: it is not addressed to the article author (in this case they happened to show up but generally they don't) so the complaint doesn't lead to anything, and the comment complains about having to read about a concept they are not familiar with, but does the exact same thing itself.

Re: Writing your own BEAM

#68

Post by Dylan16807 »

jabbywocker wrote: post #62
Dylan16807 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh you made an edit. You're looking at where I told someone not be rude, and you're interpreting that as a personal attack from me? Because I "want to be shitty"? No. And the mention of community is not a pretense. I want them to recognize that a lot of qualified people don't in fact already know that specific thing. (This is separate from how easy it is to google.) Also, if you're calling out personal attacks, the w…

> You're looking at where I told someone not be rude That’s just it, you didn’t tell them not to be rude. You hid behind nebulous shunning of “gatekeeping”. >I want them to recognize that a lot of qualified people don't in fact already know that specific thing Again, you didn’t actually do that though, did you? Instead you used the term colloquially meant to signal they are creating a “hostile” environment > Also, if…

> Again, you didn’t actually do that though, did you? Instead you used the term colloquially meant to signal they are creating a “hostile” environment

> nebulous

I think you have an incorrect idea of what the word gatekeeping means.

It's not nebulous. It's saying they're doing a bad thing (being rude/synonym) by applying incorrect and artificial criteria about who is in a group (which I quoted).

Both versions of my comment had the same meaning. I wasn't hiding behind anything, just using different phrasing.

And no, my word choice was not to virtue signal. The word fit the situation so I used it.

Re: Writing your own BEAM

#69

Post by Dylan16807 »

hatefulheart wrote: post #66
Dylan16807 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I’m sorry this is hacker news and hackers know that BEAM is the Erlang VM, no introduction or explanation needed." is being an ass to a lot of people.

Hey Dylan, you’re being an ass. Their tone was disgraceful, let me explain by giving you an example of how posts should be made. “Hey! This looks interesting, quick search on Google didn’t explain what the BEAM is as well as I would like, can someone let me know what this is about in layman’s terms?” This is inviting people to talk about the topic at hand. It puts the responsibility of knowing something squarely on t…

So, question. Are you upset the blog author did go put in an extra sentence to say what BEAM is? Is that playing into the disgrace?

Re: Writing your own BEAM

#70

Post by Dylan16807 »

DrewADesign wrote: post #63
Jtsummers wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been math and CS paper submissions where people complained that the papers lacked a complete course on set theory or some CS theory concept the paper relied on. It's a weird thing to do, but apparently popular.

I think it’s an insecurity response— lashing out to distract themselves from feeling needlessly embarrassed for encountering something new or getting confused about something.

I hope you're not accusing the original commenter here of "lashing out" for wanting one definition at the start.
Post reply on HN