Not really, not on this thread. The debate is valid (though maybe not in this hyperbolic framing), but this is subthread where I'm responding to someone who "picked their jaw up off the floor" at this "defect" of a very obvious default in the Go standard library that has been there I think since its inception, as if no network software in the history of software had ever deliberately disabled Nagle, rather than that being literally standard socket programming advice for decades.
(Again, being standard advice doesn't make it not debatable!)
I think part of the reason for the response is that people tend to just use libraries and assume they will work without reading the documentation or the code and when that strategy backfires they are surprised.
At another level: this is also caused by the fact that most users of said libraries would not be able to write those libraries in the first place and so are not qualified to read/understand the the code.
I. Don't at all understand this comment. You don't own this subthread? I don't really even really recognize the boundaries of subthreads from the larger thread, at least not in the way you're suggesting? The article is about surprising consequences of this decision. This being a "good default" is very much a subject of contention in this discussion.
> (Again, being standard advice doesn't make it not debatable!)
This seems to accept my premise that it's what's in dispute?
It being reasonable is what's in dispute.
Not really, not on this thread. The debate is valid (though maybe not in this hyperbolic framing), but this is subthread where I'm responding to someone who "picked their jaw up off the floor" at this "defect" of a very obvious default in the Go standard library that has been there I think since its inception, as if no network software in the history of software had ever deliberately disabled Nagle, rather than that being literally standard socket programming advice for decades.
(Again, being standard advice doesn't make it not debatable!)
I think part of the reason for the response is that people tend to just use libraries and assume they will work without reading the documentation or the code and when that strategy backfires they are surprised.
At another level: this is also caused by the fact that most users of said libraries would not be able to write those libraries in the first place and so are not qualified to read/understand the the code.
6 replies →
I. Don't at all understand this comment. You don't own this subthread? I don't really even really recognize the boundaries of subthreads from the larger thread, at least not in the way you're suggesting? The article is about surprising consequences of this decision. This being a "good default" is very much a subject of contention in this discussion.
> (Again, being standard advice doesn't make it not debatable!)
This seems to accept my premise that it's what's in dispute?
10 replies →