[HN Gopher] The Day The Standard Library Died (2020)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Day The Standard Library Died (2020)
        
       Author : xiaoniu
       Score  : 38 points
       Date   : 2022-06-18 17:13 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (cor3ntin.github.io)
 (TXT) w3m dump (cor3ntin.github.io)
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | rurban wrote:
       | Posted now the fifth time, see [past]
        
       | jtaft wrote:
       | Please rename the submission's title.
       | 
       | The above sentence was mentioned in the article (without
       | supporting evidence), and is not the focus of the article.
       | 
       | Tldr of article; abi was chosen not to be broken, which is
       | costing performance. Author argues if std library isn't
       | optimized, alternatives will keep being developed, and std will
       | be considered dead.
        
         | dang wrote:
         | Submitted title was "it is currently faster to launch PHP to
         | execute a regex than using std::regex" but the submitter has
         | since fixed it.
        
       | Operyl wrote:
       | Editorialized title, please keep the original titles!
        
         | Dylan16807 wrote:
         | I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to link to a
         | specific part of an article, though. And in that context I
         | wouldn't really call it editorializing.
         | 
         | URLs make this harder than it should be.
        
           | Operyl wrote:
           | In the case of HN, it's explicitly against submission
           | guidelines and frowned upon.
        
             | Dylan16807 wrote:
             | "Editorializing" is against the guidelines.
             | 
             | Trying to submit a subsection of a bigger work, with the
             | closest it has to a title, is perfectly acceptable... _if_
             | it has its own URL. If it doesn 't have a URL, then you're
             | screwed.
             | 
             | One of the few benefits of tweet threads: you can link a
             | particular tweet.
        
               | Operyl wrote:
               | I think we might be confused, originally the title was
               | not " The Day The Standard Library Died" on HN. dang
               | changed it back to that title. It was a completely
               | different title, submitted originally: " "It is currently
               | faster to launch PHP to execute a regex than using
               | std:regex"" which is what I'm saying was editorialized.
        
               | Dylan16807 wrote:
               | The title was a direct quote pointing to a specific part
               | of the article.
               | 
               | If the article had been a series of tweets, they could
               | have linked to that tweet and it would have been fine and
               | not been editorializing.
               | 
               | That's why I'm iffy on calling it editorializing. Even if
               | it _is_ , I blame URLs for not allowing the equivalent of
               | linking a specific tweet from a series.
               | 
               | It's especially bad when there's a news roundup article
               | talking about 3 or 4 different things, and you can't just
               | submit the third one with the title of that section.
        
         | dang wrote:
         | Fixed now. More at
         | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31792578
        
       | schemescape wrote:
       | This seems to be an article about how ABI compatibility makes
       | improving C++ more difficult.
       | 
       | The submission title is currently "It is currently faster to
       | launch PHP to execute a regex than using std:regex", and, while
       | the article makes this claim, it doesn't provide any evidence for
       | this. Maybe it's true, but that's not the point of the article
       | (and I really doubt it's true in most cases--just the overhead of
       | starting a new process and communicating back and forth is
       | significant).
       | 
       | Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
        
       | tedunangst wrote:
       | Where's the benchmark?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-06-18 23:01 UTC)