Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Would someone who downvoted me (or who understands the downvotes even if they did not downvote) explain the downvote?

I give reference to a site that describes a class of problems that might include the one described by the op. And it is both scary, and inherent to the existing Ruby implementations. And I also mention that this description keeps me even farther away from Ruby than I was.

And I get 5 downvotes (and counting?), and no comment. I'm not new here, and I do find this puzzling.




Although I didn't downvote you, you might have got your downvotes because your comment is irrelevant and not helpful.

Imagine someone struggling with tuning MySQL and someone else hijacking the thread with "MySQL is slow as molasses in January, use MongoDB/Cassandra/Distributed MapReduce in Erlang!". How does it help? If you want to discuss fundamental ruby issues like this one, submit your link separately.


> "MySQL is slow as molasses in January, use MongoDB/Cassandra/Distributed MapReduce in Erlang!". How does it help?

But that's entirely unlike what I wrote (although apparently that's how many people going through the thread read it). I was not advocating a different language/system whatever. I was pointing to an article saying "Existing Ruby implementations tend to randomly crash because of a very specific design flaw -- here's why that happens, and a possible, though not easy, way to determine if your crashes are a result of this design flaw". Given the info originally provided, it's hard to provide a more relevant link.

Personally, I don't care about Ruby, which is why I have no intention of submitting that link; and even if I did, based on the responses here, I suspect it would be downvoted as "badmouthing Ruby", rather than actually discussed. But I don't really care either way.

I was just surprised because while I have been downvoted before, it was never so harshly and without any discussion, especially since (if anyone actually followed the link they would have realized) it's possibly extremely relevant.


Honestly, It seems to me like it's probably for bad mouthing Ruby without obviously have having used it yourself. Ruby's pretty popular here, I assume that your comment didn't sit well with the Ruby groups here. While my own feelings toward the language are ambiguous, if you flippantly insulted one of my babies (Haskell, Scheme) my knee-jerk reaction might be to downvote you. Hopefully I'd curb it. Despite the fact that you've given some concrete reasons for staying away from Ruby vis-a-vis a link, I think you might have run into a bit of a tl;dr there. You should enumerate your problems with the language in your comments, or risk being downvoted.


More to the point the topic wasn't really about obscure bugs in ruby. The backend was failing due to getting slammed which admittedly could make some nasty bugs surface.

What I think the main problem was is that you answered someone in an emergency with a probably unrelated blog link.


> The backend was failing due to getting slammed

The original description was "server is crashing without leaving a trace", which sounds like an obscure bug to me -- certainly of the kind described in the article I linked to. It's as related as it can be given the info they gave when they originally posted their query.


Thanks.


I'm guessing the link looks like spam (broken promises of Mr blah blah blah???)


It's actually a detailed analysis of a general class of cases of why Ruby crashes. Yes, it is critical of existing Ruby implementations, but it also shows how to solve the problem.

I've learned my lesson, though - if I don't have praise for Ruby, I'll just shut up.


Er, a comment here praising Ruby would have been equally useless to the OPs problem, and downvoted accordingly.

Maybe you might learn some kind of lesson about how to view your own comment as someone else will read it?

I.e., you seemed to first disqualify yourself as someone with expert knowledge, then offer a useless criticism of the basic technology the OP is using, then offer an article that supported your negative opinion. So after that, do you expect someone seeking expert help to click that link?


Wow. I mean, just wow.

> you seemed to first disqualify yourself as someone with expert knowledge,

Right.

> then offer a useless criticism of the basic technology the OP is using,

Where did I do that? The only thing I did (other than disqualifying myself as an expert), is:

> then offer an article that supported your negative opinion.

If you actually read the article I pointed to, you might have learned something about crashing Ruby processes that leave no trace, which -- the humanity -- is what the original problem description was.

> So after that, do you expect someone seeking expert help to click that link?

Why would you (or anyone) expect the article to be "supporting my negative opinion" when the accompanying text was "perhaps this is relevant to your case?". I am not, but Joe Damato _is_ an expert in debugging undebuggable situations. Read it, you might learn something about your favorite language that you are likely to learn nowhere else.

This article helped form my negative opinion of existing Ruby implementations. Your post, among others, helped me form my opinion of the Ruby community. I totally ignored the Zedshaw bashing of it, but I'm starting to think he had it spot on.

Downvote away folks.


Well then you've obviously not learned your lesson.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: