 |   | I disagree with the author. I know he's incredibly successful and right about pretty much everything he's ever said, but I've had some experience in this area and just finished reading through some of the archives and I think his focus is wrong. I'm going to ignore the technical issue and talk about the bigger picture and higher level things than what was said in the blog post. If the OP thinks that the process is most important, it's really about end results. But if he thinks it should be about the end results then he's an idiot for not thinking about the process. I'll weasel in a reference the startup I co-founded even though it's not directly relevant. |
|
| | No, OP is correct. * You omitted hist point X. * You misunderstand point Y. * Here's point Z you didn't account for. |
|
| | Continuing the discussion of point Z, here's an interesting way[1] it relates back to the OP. And here are some unknown facts[2] the OP didn't include. [1]: http://SomeScientificJournal.com/141421 [2]: http://SomeNewsSite.com/11235813 |
|
| | > tangential statement I'm honestly really curious about this. Could you elaborate? |
|
| | Here's a long detailed, objective explanation of everything related to this issue. It's probably more useful than the actual link and it may serve as one of the best efforts to consolidate information on this subject on the entire Internet. If it contains original research only a couple of readers will be qualified to tell. Half the people who upvote this won't understand more than the first two paragraphs. Edit: I anticipated the potential questions and added more information. Add some graphs and this could be a master's thesis. |
|
| | > high-level statement about a relevant side point Here's how it really works. I'll write a couple paragraphs on all the exceptions I can think of, explaining how you should have said "often" instead of "almost always". |
|
| | As a Ruby guy, does this really matter for 95% of the world? |
|
| | It matters if you're concerned with performance. Or if you ever want to pass an interview at Google. |
|
| | I have corrections to make about your understanding of JIT. And some interpreter-specific details to share. |
|
| | I don't understand why Google asks such weird interview questions. They miss out on a lot of talent. I would never hire anyone based on their ability to estimate the number of edges on a grain of sand has after it's been run through a blender. |
|
| | They want to test your mind to see how you think. |
|
| | I was once interviewed by Google and I didn't like the questions they asked. I didn't get the job, but I probably wouldn't have taken it if they offered it to me. |
|
| | It helps you understand what's going on under the hood of your technology stack. |
|
| | I'm a 30-year veteran of C and Lisp, I've actually written code using butterfly wings, and I have a few things to say about the value of knowing your technology stack. |
|
| | I know this is off-topic, but does anyone know how he got visual effect X on his blog? It looks very nice. |
|
| | It's based off Someguy's CSS project. (https://github.com/Someguy/css-project) It uses CSS3 features not fully supported in all browsers yet. I don't think Firefox or IE properly support it yet. |
|
| | > giant snippet Here's a hyper-anal correction that is itself correct, but doesn't exactly contradict the OP. |
|
| | I'm a back-end Java developer at a mid-sized company. Any application of this for me? |
|
| | Here's a basic higher-level explanation of the subject with just enough random details to sound useful, but... it won't really help anyone. |
|
| | Relevant XKCD: http://dynamic.xkcd.com/random/comic/ |
|
| | A big block of text with no paragraph breaks. t seems like the author is trying his hardest to provide something insightful and well-written, and while it seems on-topic it is hard to relate to the original article. None of it looks wrong, but it doesn't seem very informative either. Most people will just skip right over it. There will be a semi-obscure Wikipedia link somewhere in here.[1] [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random |
|
| | Hasn't the technology the OP is discussing, which is a cornerstone of 21st century technology, been rendered obsolete by this other marginally-used project started last year? |
|
| | You are confusing the purposes of those technologies. They are not equivalent. |
|
| | Given that OP is who they are, they're probably right. This guy is a genius. |
|
| | Why can't we have more detailed technical stuff like this on HN? |
|
| | Who's the OP and why do we care about his opinion? |
|
| | Actually, if you've visited more than 3 sites on the Internet, you've probably used something he designed. |
|
| | He started a company related to this a while ago and helped pioneer this field. He's a highly respected contributor to this field and designed X and Y. |
|
| | I disagree with the title. And based on what I say I obviously didn't read the actual article. |