Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjmlp | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

I read this and your reply to the sibling, you seem to have reputation to be sensible - what are you trying to say? If someone re-implements or reverses a service then it doesn't need to be in the same language.

This dude stays commenting on things he doesn't actually understand anything about. I have run into him multiple times in threads on what I do (compilers) and he's clueless but insistent.

Thakfully that the Internet is full of analists with such deep understanding of others personality, otherwise we would all be lost.

As for the matter at hand, I assume that such implementation is validated against which specification exactly?

Gladly to be educated in my clueless.

I guess English isn't your first language so nbd but I have no idea what you're asking.

To be educated on the public specification of Apple's Private Compute Cloud so that I become less clueless, according to you.

This question makes zero sense - PCC is a (proprietary) system not an interface. There is no spec just like there's no spec for how you have the furniture arranged in your own house.

Please explain the audience the title of this submission given that answer.

Apparently some of us actually have a clue.

Pedantic yes, sensible not really, sensible folks don't survive the level of BBS and USENET discussion forums.

To make a full implementation of a Apple product, the specification for that Apple product must exist in some form.

Right, but whatever the languages used by Apple to implement their cloud is not really related to the Swift language. I guess you should have said what you said just now first.

It is an implementation. As long has it behaves the same...

I think the parent has a valid point. The actual README says "inspired by Apple’s Private Cloud Compute".

I think it's more fair to say it implements the same idea but it is not an opensource implementation of Apple's Private Compute Cloud the way e.g. minio is an implementation of S3, so the HN title is misleading.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com