Bastion – A Highly-Available Distributed Fault-Tolerant Runtime for Rust

Re:Bastion – A Highly-Available Distributed Fault-Tolerant R... by andrewflnr on Monday March 01, 2021 @07:52PM (#26310580)

You don't know enough about the title to comment on it until you know what it's describing. All your questions would have had obvious answers if you had done so. All the terms you raised FUD about were in fact being used in perfectly appropriate ways. So no one had to assume anything about your motive to conclude that your comment had negative value.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bastion – A Highly-Available Distributed Fault-Tolerant R... by spockz on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @12:57AM (#26312301)

The whole point that the first comment tried to make was that titles should be as precise, detailed, and concise as possible. Exactly for the reason so that you should not have to read the whole page to understand what the title was about.

For me I had some of the same questions and “Bastion - an actor framework for Rust” would have covered the content as well.

Take the comment as general advice on how to define titles instead of an attack and flagging it to oblivion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bastion – A Highly-Available Distributed Fault-Tolerant R... by andrewflnr on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @10:06AM (#26316026)

> “Bastion - an actor framework for Rust”

This would have been less accurate and far less interesting. A title that somehow referenced the Erlang roots of the design might be an improvement, but without comparing to an existing project I don't see a better way to summarize the project's full value proposition than exactly the title we saw. But of course if you don't actually read the article you can't find that out. You're allowed to think the title is stupid and not read the article, but then don't come here and pretend your ignorance is insight. That's why the top level deserved to be flagged to oblivion, though FWIW I only would have downvoted.

[ Parent | on HN ]