|
| ▲ | twoodfin an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| The evidence is that the article’s writing is terrible. It repeats the same rhetorical devices over and over, dressing up a series of facts in false profundity, because there’s no actual authorial insight here. It’s just “write a well-researched article that demonstrates how ahead of its time the Ada language was” + matmul. |
| |
| ▲ | boxed 38 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Humans are not gods of writing that will please all audiences and make no mistakes. | | |
| ▲ | twoodfin 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Neither of those standards are what I’m talking about. Obviously this article was highly pleasing to the hn audience as it’s currently sitting at #1. It’s still garbage, because it doesn’t have any interesting ideas behind it.
Certainly not commensurate with its length. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | zozbot234 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The combination of emdashes and inane non-sequiturs in "These are not X. They're Y" style is pretty damning. |
|
| ▲ | quietbritishjim an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I think the quoted word salad is plenty of evidence. |
