The bizarre "you're welcome" in the title is so obnoxious that I was sure it would be related to some sort of funny twist in the blog entry. Nope, they really thought that was appropriate.
> Edit: In full transparency, this blog post was originally titled "Protobuf finally has LSP support. You're Welcome." We thought this might generate some interest, but unfortunately this post sat unloved for months. Then, out of the blue, this post decided to make front page HN, and we received some choice feedback on our use of "You're Welcome" and our poor comedic abilities. Fair enough, we appreciate you speaking up - and we of course *thank you* for your continued support of our work!
I, personally, enjoy Buf. It has solved many frustrations I've had with The Way it was previously done, manually installing protoc plugins, writing arcane flags into scripts nobody wants to touch, working around various quirks, like how protoc produces different output based on which directory you invoke it in, et cetera... I don't quite like the remote plugin model and rate limiting, but using local plugins is easy enough that it doesn't matter.
Buf has made my life easier, and I've actually been using `buf_ls` for a while now in NeoVim. I understand where the criticism of the title comes from, but I don't personally feel it in this particular case. In fact, I didn't even notice it.
I don't even mind the monetized properietary cloud thing, as long as Buf CLI and the related toolchain remains free software, serving the community. Hope you won't do the ol' switcharoo any time soon.
And the Buf CLI will always be free and OSS, don't worry!
It can be hard for some people to navigate the nuances between usage of a tongue-in-cheek usage of the phrase which is more socially acceptable or humorous from the version that reads as arrogant
Test for yourself: next time you take out the garbage, loudly tell your partner or roommate, “I took out the garbage. You’re welcome.”
Try this instead: give a stranger a piece of pre-chewed gum and say “you’re welcome!” Hell, even if it’s not pre-chewed, it’s just presumptuous and rude. You have no idea if they value it or not. They might not even like it.
Even if my barista handed me the coffee I ordered and said “you’re welcome” before I thanked them first, I’d think they’re a little off kilter.
> Even if my barista handed me the coffee I ordered and said “you’re welcome” before I thanked them first, I’d think they’re a little off kilter.
Jeez...
But also that's a conversation where you can thank them first. That part isn't applicable to a post like this.
If this doesn't make sense to you, I'm not sure there's much anyone can do to convince you, because it's purely social convention. It's certainly possible that the author didn't realize it either, but having to deal with reactions about word choice when putting out writing explicitly for public consumption kinda comes with the territory.
This goes for Hacker News comments too of course, but as someone with no horse in this race, your interference about their word choice seems like much more of a stretch than theirs about the author. Not recognizing that a title to a blog post will evoke a negative reactions in a lot of readers does genuinely seem like information about the author socially in a way that having that common negative reaction does not.
The social convention is for conversations.
You seem incredulous at the idea that some things that might be socially acceptable in conversational circumstances would not be perceived similarly in published writing, but I don't really understand why. There are all sorts of things that might not cause someone to bat an eye in a spoken conversation that are much more difficult to use in writing.
I don't think we're going to resolve this difference in view.
But please stop making wild guesses about how I handle broad categories of communication when I'm commenting on one specific case. I don't say it doesn't make sense. I'm not incredulous. That's really obnoxious.
> The social convention is for conversations.
> How is a thank you supposed to precede it in a blog post?
That's a pretty clear distinction between a blog post and conversations.
Now you're saying:
> But please stop making wild guesses about how I handle broad categories of communication when I'm commenting on one specific case. I don't say it doesn't make sense. I'm not incredulous. That's really obnoxious.
I honestly have no clue what you're even trying to say at this point. You don't seem to want to say it directly, and yet you're now claiming I'm being obnoxious for trying to figure it out.
> I don't think we're going to resolve this difference in view.
That's the one thing we can agree on, since from my perspective, you're being a lot more obnoxious by pretty much treating people the exact same way you've been complaining about the entire time.
I have been very direct. You're trying to make it more indirect when you try to generalize like this. And throwing out "if this doesn't make sense to you", or "you seem incredulous" about the entire existence of certain social norms that apply in some situations but not others, is a bad way of trying to figure out what I mean; it's rude.
Edit: An analogy: I have a critique about a type of waffle and you imply I don't understand the purpose of baked goods in general. This is not a good way to converse and the confusion is not my fault.
I don't think you've been direct at all about anything relating to the actual original conversation; the only things you've been direct about are in telling me or others that we're wrong and pointing out the things you think we've been doing wrong (along with a random assumption about someone else's life based on the comment they initially made), and then proceeded to take issue with every instance where someone else does the exact same things.
It's pretty much impossible phrase this point because you have gotten upset any time I happen to incidentally phrase something using the second person pronoun, but I'll try my best: when person A says something, and person B doesn't understand it, that's not sufficient evidence to conclude that person A or person B is at fault. Communication doesn't exist in only one direction. Sometimes it might be because person B did a bad job understanding, but sometimes it's also because person A did a bad job communicating. In the scenarios where person A happened to do a bad job, it's pretty common for them not to realize, because if they did realize, they would follow up by clarifying. It's pretty much impossible for person A to know whether they communicated clearly or not without some other person to interpret it, because communication that isn't interpreted in some way by someone else isn't actually communication.
This is so far away from anything I meant to say that I have no idea what happened.
> you've still refused to elaborate on how or why you think they're different
I don't?
I think blog posts are different from conversations but that should be self-explanatory.
> along with a random assumption about someone else's life based on the comment they initially made
"Bad day or something" is suggesting they're being too harsh. It's not suggesting they fail to understand the situation, the way you did with me.
> I don't think you've been direct at all about anything relating to the actual original conversation; the only things you've been direct about are in telling me or others that we're wrong and pointing out the things you think we've been doing wrong
What do you want me to be more direct about? The answer to whether I understand these broad categories of social norms exist is yes. I just don't think the blog post falls into the category where you need a thank you first. Is there anything else you want to ask?
I don't think I can say anything useful about your last paragraph.
Looking back though before writing this comment, I did notice that the comment seems to have been flagged, and that doesn't seem necessary to me. On the off chance that it might have been a factor in your subsequent responses, I went ahead and vouched for it because I think I would be frustrated if I were flagged for a comment that was similarly benign (even if it was wrong).