Tptacek's Review of "Practical Cryptography With Go"

Re:Tptacek's Review of "Practical Cryptography With Go" by tomp on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @05:34AM (#7596829)

This hardly makes any sense:

  - for the readers who already know the abbreviation, it's a waste of space and time
  - for readers who don't, the words won't tell them much either - Transport Layer Security tells you about nothing about what TLS really is - besides, for those who are really interested, they can always look it up on Wikipedia (that way, they will actually understand it).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tptacek's Review of "Practical Cryptography With Go" by mhaymo on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @08:05AM (#7597206)

> Transport Layer Security tells you about nothing about what TLS really is

Doesn't it? Even a complete tech-illiterate can glean some meaning from the word "security".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tptacek's Review of "Practical Cryptography With Go" by sltkr on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @12:12PM (#7598630)

And "Transport Layer" should ring a bell to anyone familiar with the OSI model (for example, a student that has taken an introductory course on network protocols).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tptacek's Review of "Practical Cryptography With Go" by cabinpark on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @11:40AM (#7598435)

And yet in every scientific paper I have read they still spell out the abbreviations the first time. And these are written by experts in the field. Why? Because it removes ambiguity and makes it completely clear what you are talking about. What if in 20-30 years the acronyms change or fall out of favour? It happens all the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tptacek's Review of "Practical Cryptography With Go" by amoonki on Wednesday April 16, 2014 @09:00AM (#7597431)

As mentioned earlier in this thread, eople who don't know now have some keywords to google with.

[ Parent | on HN ]