WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 31286844

(no title)

lhecker | 3 years ago

I'm not sure editing the article would be the proper thing to do at this point. Someone else suggested to edit in 1-2 weeks for possible future readers.

I can add back the sentence where I accredit Alacritty for the general, underlying algorithm/idea then, because that's where I heard about it first. There isn't really any other alternative, performant way to implement GPU-accelerated terminals, so I don't think hearing about it again from Casey changed my perception of what the only alternative to Direct2D is, in case it's fundamentally flawed for our purpose which it turned out to be.

discuss

order

phendrenad2|3 years ago

Sometimes logic isn't enough. YOU caused a huge amount of anger among the community by being condescending, and insisting "I learned this from alacritty, not the person I was condescending towards" isn't going to make anyone less angry. I'm just telling it like it is here. Humility is, unfortunately, what you need, and you can't fake humility.

dmitriid|3 years ago

> I'm not sure editing the article would be the proper thing to do at this point. Someone else suggested to edit in 1-2 weeks for possible future readers.

There's nothing improper with adding "Edit: credit to the <name of the person> who suggested the solution. While the solution seems trivial, there are certain technical challenges to overcome".

> because that's where I heard about it first.

No. That's not where you heard it first. Otherwise you wouldn't have written "this needs doctoral research on performance" in the original issue.

Edit: I misattributed this quote, you didn't say it.

> I don't think hearing about it again from Casey

There's an actual, verifiable screenshot of your reaction to his words. That was not an "again".

zamadatix|3 years ago

> There's nothing improper with adding

The point of the waiting to edit suggestion is to avoid a bunch of reactionary edits during the most heated period. Immediately implementing every edit demanded of you when different people are demanding different edits all at once seems improper to me and waiting a short period seems a level headed approach. It also avoids the look of just trying to cover everything up the quickest way possible instead focusing on well thought out sincere reactions.

> No. That's not where you heard it first. Otherwise you wouldn't have written "this needs doctoral research on performance" in the original issue.

You've attributed the quote to the wrong person, it was not lhecker who said that.

> There's an actual, verifiable screenshot of your reaction to his words. That was not an "again".

There is nothing in lhecker's response that suggests he hadn't heard of the alternative. His comment argued it should all be able to handled in DirectWrite without using the alternative not that the alternative hadn't been thought of.