4 ms·

> Probably was some dude’s L7 promo project in AWS. Actually a former CS prof at Maryland moving to industry. https://mhicks.me/ https://mhicks.me/

margorczynski 4y ago
So a theoretician who had little experience actually using such solutions in real life?
- distcs 4y ago
  > So a theoretician who had little experience actually using such solutions in real life? These low-effort, borderline ad-hominem comments like yours make these comment threads a terrible reading experience. These comments add nothing to the discussion.
  - devopsArch 4y ago
    I disagree. when some tech seems to come out of nowhere, and disconnected from the general community practices, understanding the background of who made it can help understanding its blindspots. also, the whole thing did not start with some kind of open white paper explaining the need, the rational for a new framework or language and comparing with alternatives, etc. which is often how oss projects start.
    - distcs 4y ago
      > understanding the background of who made it can help understanding its blindspots That background was already provided in the comment by fuklief. What value does the comment by margorczynski add to this discussion?
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      Creating a DSL is not particularly innovative but is definitely not "disconnected from the general community practices". > which is often how oss projects start lol
  - 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
    The comment added a very specific and valid criticism to the discussion: academics don't design for the real world. (In case I have to lead you down the path... the point being, the design will lack insight into how such a policy language might function in the real world, and thus not provide any significant advantage over existing policy languages, while simultaneously fragmenting said ecosystem)
    - distcs 4y ago
      > academics don't design for the real world This is yet another ad hominem which I frankly find very distasteful. Plenty of real world software that you see around has been designed by academics and are hugely successful in the real world. Academics come in all varieties just like your engineers. There are good engineers and there are engineers with years of experience who design terrible software. There are academics who do not design for real world and there are academics who do. Just throwing around the term "academic" in a loose manner offers no insight on the quality of the work. If there is any valid criticism it should be made on the work, not about the person behind it. That you come to defend ad hominem in more elaborate words goes to reaffirm my original point about why these comments make these threads a terrible reading experience! They often seem to show a shallow understanding of both the academia and the professional IT industry.
      - 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
        You realize the phrase ad hominem means a personal attack, right? None of us have made a personal attack. If anything, we are attacking the distinction between one institution and another. We're pointing out that experience provides essential knowledge that a person who hasn't had experience lacks, a simple truth of life. Reading a book about performing surgery is much different than having actually performed the surgery. And someone who has worked in academia (aka "an academic") lacks experience in industry. An academic has not been actually applying the policies in a large organization for years, and thus cannot know or predict all the ways in which the practice of applying the policy can cause problems that do not present themselves in a non-industry setting. Again, we are not attacking a person. We are specifically saying that any person who lacks experience is not going to make as good of a solution. This is not a controversial statement.

margorczynski 4y ago

So a theoretician who had little experience actually using such solutions in real life?

distcs 4y ago
> So a theoretician who had little experience actually using such solutions in real life? These low-effort, borderline ad-hominem comments like yours make these comment threads a terrible reading experience. These comments add nothing to the discussion.
- devopsArch 4y ago
  I disagree. when some tech seems to come out of nowhere, and disconnected from the general community practices, understanding the background of who made it can help understanding its blindspots. also, the whole thing did not start with some kind of open white paper explaining the need, the rational for a new framework or language and comparing with alternatives, etc. which is often how oss projects start.
  - distcs 4y ago
    > understanding the background of who made it can help understanding its blindspots That background was already provided in the comment by fuklief. What value does the comment by margorczynski add to this discussion?
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    Creating a DSL is not particularly innovative but is definitely not "disconnected from the general community practices". > which is often how oss projects start lol
- 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
  The comment added a very specific and valid criticism to the discussion: academics don't design for the real world. (In case I have to lead you down the path... the point being, the design will lack insight into how such a policy language might function in the real world, and thus not provide any significant advantage over existing policy languages, while simultaneously fragmenting said ecosystem)
  - distcs 4y ago
    > academics don't design for the real world This is yet another ad hominem which I frankly find very distasteful. Plenty of real world software that you see around has been designed by academics and are hugely successful in the real world. Academics come in all varieties just like your engineers. There are good engineers and there are engineers with years of experience who design terrible software. There are academics who do not design for real world and there are academics who do. Just throwing around the term "academic" in a loose manner offers no insight on the quality of the work. If there is any valid criticism it should be made on the work, not about the person behind it. That you come to defend ad hominem in more elaborate words goes to reaffirm my original point about why these comments make these threads a terrible reading experience! They often seem to show a shallow understanding of both the academia and the professional IT industry.
    - 0xbadcafebee 4y ago
      You realize the phrase ad hominem means a personal attack, right? None of us have made a personal attack. If anything, we are attacking the distinction between one institution and another. We're pointing out that experience provides essential knowledge that a person who hasn't had experience lacks, a simple truth of life. Reading a book about performing surgery is much different than having actually performed the surgery. And someone who has worked in academia (aka "an academic") lacks experience in industry. An academic has not been actually applying the policies in a large organization for years, and thus cannot know or predict all the ways in which the practice of applying the policy can cause problems that do not present themselves in a non-industry setting. Again, we are not attacking a person. We are specifically saying that any person who lacks experience is not going to make as good of a solution. This is not a controversial statement.