I think English is not the author's first language; it shows up in the article and in his posts here. We tend to be understanding of poor grammar here, but the instinctive reaction to flawed English is that the message is also flawed. While it is possible to work out what the author meant, it takes some consideration - that consideration is better spent on the ideas.
Writing should be like a window, that you can see clearly through - not one you have to keep checking to see if it's a mark on the window or what you're supposed to be seeing. Excellent writing disappears.
So, TalkBinary, if you're genuinely interested in writing, improving your English is crucial. It might seem prejudiced to criticize your English, but it is the first thing people see about your writing, and because their time is limited, they will judge it on that basis. swombat has given a lot of his time to you - although it can be harsh to hear negative comments, this is valuable advice you have received. It might also seem that grammar and spelling etc are secondary, and shouldn't matter (I used to feel this), but they really do - if you want to communicate. Hell, even when I read my own writing months later, any spelling errors etc are very distracting, and if I haven't been clear it is hard for even me, the author, to understand.
I'm not sure of the best way for you to improve, but the first thing is for you to want to. The second thing is to get feedback - swombat has given you a start (and I agree with all his writing points). If you can handle it, seek out further feedback and criticism. If you are in school/uni, you can probably find someone there to help also. The third thing is to take action on it - such as rewriting this article with the errors corrected.
Finally, I wanted to fill out one of swombat's points: writing out an algorithm can be crucial. I just spent the last two months getting one clear (I did have a go at coding it directly earlier on, but it wasn't clear enough). Once I was clear, it just took a day (today) to design, code and debug. Now, this is unusual; I'm doing research on relationships between grammars for a startup. Mostly it's not needed, as swombat says. But after two months, I just wanted to speak up for one of those problems that is not in the "most" category (though I'm inclined to think that all problems are trivially easy once you know how to solve them; similar to how mathematician can only do "trivial" proofs.)
I actually think the ideas quoted above are actually good ones, if you're not clear on what you're doing (though annoyingly expressed). Exploratory programming is also helpful. I find it's a mix; it depends how complex the problem is, how many different issues there are - and crucially - how much experience you have with that kind of program. Familiar problems are easy to solve in your head or at the keyboard. I used to always work that way, until I got into grammar stuff.
BTW: if you purely compiled this, so it's not your writing, remember that as editor, it's even more important that you are able to write well, so as to improve - edit - the writing of others. Anyway, good luck, I think the article is hepful overall, good on you for actually doing something and having a go, and I hope you start to take this opportunity, of room for improvement.
Thanks for the comment. I understand as a writer that all I can do is improve my writing. So sure, I don't really mind people criticizing me for my writing. On the other hand, I love to hear what others have to say when I can improve on something.
I just don't like hearing people assume and start talking about things where I don't think its entirely true.
As you, I also believe writing out an algorithm is crucial. Sure, you can get away with it most of the times but once the problem becomes more abstract, difficult, and interesting then it's essential.
I think swombat was definitely rude in his first comment calling it a "fart" and "trash". Name-calling is labeling, and is neither accurate nor helpful in a cognitive sense; and is abusive and disrespectful in a social sense; and it appears to be based on a strong personal emotion of anger, rather than an objective appraisal. It has no place in a civil and intellectual forum. But this is the internet. It's never been a civil and intellectual forum, including here, despite what many HN users would like. Even associate professors, when online, do it: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1611007
The best we can do is to seek the grain of truth in what someone says, because they often do have a point, disregard the rest, and not fall into name-calling ourselves. It's just about impossible to stop someone from being rude; but we can stop ourselves from taking it personally. And the most effective way to do that is to fully accept any legitimate criticism they have, and totally discard the rest. The rudeness belongs to them, not to you, and you can bet it causes them all sorts of problem. One should therefore feel sympathy for person who has been rude (including oneself.)
That said, let me unpack what (I think) was meant: by "brain fart", he's upset about the writing itself, and that the ideas have not been thought out carefully. He sees it as carelessness, and is offended. Whereas I see it as a lack of ability, with English not being the authors' first language. But I agree that you and the other authors can improve on this - as he said "you can do better than this".
By "link-bait trash", I think he means that you have written this article for the purpose of getting hits, and not primarily out of interest in the content, nor for a wish to communicate it. From the article, and what you've said here, it does come across that way - but I find it very hard to judge, because of the language issue. Poor communication can lead to all sorts of problems!
He could have written these thoughts out objectively, without name-calling; as a result of not doing that, he has offended you. When a person feels attacked and offended, it is distracting for them, and makes it difficult for them to appreciate the actual content of the criticism (it even tends to pressure people to go against the criticism). Name-calling undermines one's purpose.
I hope the above makes it easier for you to accept the content, and disregard the insult.
You can begin by asking yourself what the purposes of the article were - was getting hits the primary purpose? It might not be "entirely true", but is it partly true? If so, admit it to yourself, and then you can move on. Having an objective and factual perspective makes you (largely) immune to insult.
(BTW: I have a more nuanced view of writing out algorithms. It's definitely useful at times, but it's not always the best one (not crucial or essential). A danger is that writing can concretize your conception of the problem (eg an incorrect assumption); whereas beginning to code can give you information. Have you ever gone to a lot of trouble to get clear on a problem, and then when you start to code it, you immediately realize that you misunderstood it, meaning that all that time was wasted? (and if you've become attached to that misunderstanding, you may fight the evidence, or not even see it, because not open to it). Writing algorithms definitely has its place, it's a mix.)
Writing should be like a window, that you can see clearly through - not one you have to keep checking to see if it's a mark on the window or what you're supposed to be seeing. Excellent writing disappears.
So, TalkBinary, if you're genuinely interested in writing, improving your English is crucial. It might seem prejudiced to criticize your English, but it is the first thing people see about your writing, and because their time is limited, they will judge it on that basis. swombat has given a lot of his time to you - although it can be harsh to hear negative comments, this is valuable advice you have received. It might also seem that grammar and spelling etc are secondary, and shouldn't matter (I used to feel this), but they really do - if you want to communicate. Hell, even when I read my own writing months later, any spelling errors etc are very distracting, and if I haven't been clear it is hard for even me, the author, to understand.
I'm not sure of the best way for you to improve, but the first thing is for you to want to. The second thing is to get feedback - swombat has given you a start (and I agree with all his writing points). If you can handle it, seek out further feedback and criticism. If you are in school/uni, you can probably find someone there to help also. The third thing is to take action on it - such as rewriting this article with the errors corrected.
Finally, I wanted to fill out one of swombat's points: writing out an algorithm can be crucial. I just spent the last two months getting one clear (I did have a go at coding it directly earlier on, but it wasn't clear enough). Once I was clear, it just took a day (today) to design, code and debug. Now, this is unusual; I'm doing research on relationships between grammars for a startup. Mostly it's not needed, as swombat says. But after two months, I just wanted to speak up for one of those problems that is not in the "most" category (though I'm inclined to think that all problems are trivially easy once you know how to solve them; similar to how mathematician can only do "trivial" proofs.)
I actually think the ideas quoted above are actually good ones, if you're not clear on what you're doing (though annoyingly expressed). Exploratory programming is also helpful. I find it's a mix; it depends how complex the problem is, how many different issues there are - and crucially - how much experience you have with that kind of program. Familiar problems are easy to solve in your head or at the keyboard. I used to always work that way, until I got into grammar stuff.
BTW: if you purely compiled this, so it's not your writing, remember that as editor, it's even more important that you are able to write well, so as to improve - edit - the writing of others. Anyway, good luck, I think the article is hepful overall, good on you for actually doing something and having a go, and I hope you start to take this opportunity, of room for improvement.