Posted by naves 1 day ago
> That silence is the story.
These LLMs are just awful at writing.
I think it really abuses the assumption of good faith and the default to generous interpretation, because it forces you to divorce the author from their own published work in order to view them seriously. I suspect most of the comments here are generously ignoring the included graphic. But in the most generous view possible, the author is fine with publishing wildly inaccurate statements.
I think this makes HackerNews much worse, and posts like these should only be flagged.
>introduced a level of cognitive complexity that makes Kierkegaard read like Hemingway.
and I fucking lost it.
Dead silence. Here's what 3 people said (the opposite of silence). Then the meeting went sideways (also the opposite of silence).
The silence is the story.
But "That silence is the story." is still a pretty telling non-sequitr, and it doesn't seem like the kind that comes from sloppy editing.
The punchy "Thing. Thing. Thing." is used constantly. We see it constantly in this article:
> 852 pages. Win16 API in C.
> Message loops. Window procedures. GDI.
> One OS, one API, one language, one book.
But those are minor sins. But in the end of the article, Snover states that Microsoft pitched C++ in 2012. That's so incorrect! The contents of this blog post are at least partially falsified.
Plus, the thesis statement is nonsense:
> When a platform can’t answer “how should I build a UI?” in under ten seconds, it has failed its developers. Full stop.
"Full stop" is a pretty heavy thing to end a nonsense statement with. How an inanimate software platform can "answer" things is not implicitly obvious, either. Is it a human representative? Are they the docs? Is it through a good UI?
The post is about Petzold's / Reccold's "Programming Windows", but it is apparently 852 pages, so that certainly wasn't answered in under 10 seconds either.
Having said that, this article feels like AI slop to me. Couldn’t get through it.
I’m not sure what Microsoft can possibly do when the closest thing to a collection of power users is this painfully repetitive.
When I last used Windows, on a fresh install, I saw a mixture of different frameworks used for core OS components from the same vendor.
When I last used OS X, it was pretty consistent but I hear complaints from friends that its no longer the case.
Every WPF program was laggy and took ages to even start up (is everyone forgetting hard disk speeds?), partly due to it being managed code. The components didn't feel native either, and the coupling to managed code and garbage collection basically ensured all those would be perpetual issues. Yeah the programming model was beautiful and all, but you're supposedly developing to make your customers happy, not to make yourself or computer scientists happy.
You can see how terrible it would've been to base Windows's shell on WPF by looking at how much users have loved the non-Win32 windows since then.
- WinForms applications also took visibly longer to load than Win32. I didn't dread loading them nearly as much as WPF, yes, but I still did. They weren't what I'd call "snappy", but they were... usable enough.
- WinForms also stuttered (in my experience) with the GC. Again, not "snappy" in my experience, but this was more dependent on your use case.
- WinForms were .NET 2.0 rather than .NET 3.0, with fewer modules to load. It certainly felt more lightweight, which from my memory (of how the hard disk behaved) correlated with that.