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

Agree, and to look at it from a different angle - to me writing Erlang felt like I was writing config txt files to some underlying system. The system performs good following your "config" but all the hardcore feel is lost for you.



Huh?

"Hardcore feel" is definitely there and the language is anything but "writing config txt files to some underlying system".

I've built applications in the > 10k SLOC range that use a consensus algorithm for distributed computing and it was hard but made tremendously easier because of Erlang's built in primitives.

No hardcore feel was lost at all and neither was it writing a config txt file...

[EDIT] I would love to know why the downvoter disagrees with me, unless you're being a downvote kiddie.


I would never downvote someone for it, but starting a comment with "Huh?" is always incredibly annoying to me, although it happens a ton on HN. To me it reads like something you would only say if a comment was literally unintelligible, or logically impossible or something. If you changed it to "I disagree," or "What do you mean?" it would change the whole tone of the comment, at least for me.

Anyway, just a guess, I don't even have enough karma to downvote.


Very interesting! I have to admit I've not gone so far with Erlang...

Mind to share some more details? What project/company it is?


Could possibly be that your comment comes across a bit harsh. Even if not the intention, my inner dialogue read it as someone speaking with anger.


Strange. My inner dialogue read it as someone speaking matter-of-fact-ly about their experiences with the language.

Maybe I assume good faith on the part of the speaker in a wider range of situations than many folks.


The initial use of "Huh?" might have been what set the tone for me. At the time I read it, the comment also ended with "kiddie", so I might be a bit biased.

Aside from that, it's obvious he has more experience with Erlang but the tone still matters in a discussion.


Down vote = I don't agree with your statement normally here. Not that it might be a starting point on a conversation?


Interesting. I have always thought about the down vote as: I don't like your comment and I want to punish you for it.

You know, there is karma involved. If down votes are supposed to be used the way you describe, people that are intelligent and polite and educated on their answers, but share a different view than the majority here, should not be part of the community. Is that the intent?


Down voting is not for disagreeing, read the guidelines for HN. If you disagree, provide a comment as to why.

Down voting is for completely irrelevant comments, inappropriate comments, etc...

[EDIT] To be clear, I did not downvote you and I disagree with the down votes on your comment here, even though it's off-topic it's important to acculturate people that are accustomed to "downvoting for disagreeing". Which is why I'm commenting.


Downvoting is for however the user wants to use it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

> pg 2455 days ago | link | parent | flag > I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.

> It only becomes abuse when people resort to karma bombing: downvoting a lot of comments by one user without reading them in order to subtract maximum karma. Fortunately we now have several levels of software to protect against that.


What I have never understood about HN's use of the down vote as "I don't agree with you" is that it also changes the color of the post to one designed to be hard to read, so it's like imposing a kind of progressive silence.

Why not just a change in color to something different, not harder to read? If down vote is to be used however the down voter wants then why attach the "punishing" color to it?

It's an interesting system in that I have not seen it anywhere else and indeed does seem to work. But still I can't understand it.


Thank you! HN is not Reddit, and I'm happy down vote can be used as a "I don't agree with you button".


In that case I stand corrected - I thought I remembered reading that in the guidelines.

Downvotes instead of comments is still a personal peeve but I guess I can't chide people for it on HN, lol.


I also did not down vote the poster; however I don't see anywhere in the guidelines that says down voting is not for disagreeing. Interestingly though the guidelines do explicitly state, "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."

For anyone looking for the citation you can see the full (and quite short) guidelines here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


>Down voting is not for disagreeing, read the guidelines for HN.

(citation needed)


To be clearer (I guess.) There are no guidelines that say this that I am aware of, that I can locate, or have been cited by anyone. The guidelines only mention downvoting in the context of bitching about downvoting.




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

Search: