Hacker News Reader

Comment by lordgilman | Hacker News Reader

I know that my submission's title is not the same as the blog post's title and that I will get some hate for it. However, the two diffs linked in the post give pretty convincing evidence that IE is picking up on the exact SunSpider test. Furthermore, if you read the last sentence of the blog post the author is more or less beating around the "You're cheating, we've caught you red-handed" bush.

View on HN

I don't think it's ever a good idea to make a headline more sensational. We should wait for a response from Microsoft before declaring them liars/cheaters. It's entirely possible that Microsoft has a valid explanation.

Personally - on at least two occasions, I've been accused of writing code that was specifically written to cause grief/problems with another person, only to have to explain that it was a bug and that their personal test-case isn't the only place where it fails.

* And even if the author did directly accuse MS of cheating, that doesn't mean we can't be more correct and rewrite it to be neutral.

I totally agree with you on minimizing the controversy until incontrovertible facts have been found.

In my personal experience, assuming bad will on another person's part kills all chance of civil discussion and severely hurts your chances of finding more facts, because people are on the defensive. Not to mention how hard it is to remove that sort of egg stain from your face.

that'll be 2¢ please!

I don't think it is appropriate at all to change the title or imply meaning on the original article. Further, assume stupidity not malice.

Plus, it makes it harder to search for the discussion of the original article.

IMHO, you should not conclude unless you corroborate the evidence the blog author provided. There is a reason why he didn't name the blog post so. It's you who say MS cheated and it's for you to prove the fact with the evidence. Also "more or less" has never meant conclusive. Just a thought, that title is misleading and a question mark wouldn't have raised this issue at all.

I might edit your post title to include a question mark, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch past that.

You're too generous. The author knows he caught MS red-handed:

"What sorts of code does the analysis work on, other than the exact function included in SunSpider?" (emphasis mine)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com