1. 8

  2. 4

    @jcs: Is there a flag addition we can make for “this article is short and not very in-depth”?

    Like, I get that steveklabnik is popularizing Rust–I would be too if I worked on a language–but I really hate seeing these short little “omg omg omg Rust is amazing but here’s no code to substantiate that claim”.

    This is a problem that, of course, generalizes to other languages and topics.

    1. 6

      We had a “low quality” flag but it got abused.

      If the article is spam, mark it as such, but if it’s just short on content, I’d say hide it or just don’t upvote it because it’s not really hurting much. Higher quality stories will bump it off the page.

      1. 4

        I really don’t understand your point. Nothing on lobste.rs says that code is necessary for a submission. The whole point of the post is the description of how Rusts philosophy differs from e.g. Racket, the specific point being point “runtime” or “no runtime” (or, wider, “batteries included” vs. “no batteries included”). I don’t see how this should illustrated with code. I also don’t see the “omg amazing” part - the post describes how Rust takes a pretty rare position as a language nowadays, it doesn’t necessarily go into hype language.

        The brevity of the post speaks for it and is immediately apparent when you click it - I’m not sure how this is worthwhile info.

        1. 9

          The brevity of the post pretty much guarantees that most of the claims–such as Ruby and Python falling out of favor because of performance–are unsubstantiated.

          Author asserts that Rust is magically expandable using crates, fails to show how that might work. Author asserts that we can get userland GC, fails to show how that might work. Author asserts that Racket’s runtime is limited, fails to show how.

          I could write a similar article about chocolate and vanilla ice cream, citing the ability to extend vanilla ice cream with mixins and explaining how chocolate ice cream is limited outside of a certain flavor profile, and it too would have little utility on a site like this.

          The reason that I tend to flag these non-code articles isn’t that they lack code–it’s that they typically are really lazy in their presentation, and end up as uncritical popcorn toilet reading. This is the sort of article that you read in your taxi and then use to pretend you’ve got something useful to say when a colleague mentions Rust at lunch. It’s for poseurs.

          I’d flag any similar articles about Elixir, C, or whatever else, if they lacked technical details one could engage with.

          1. 2

            Do you feel like a tag similar to “opinion” might be useful? With a description like “Unsubstantiated or less substantiated claims included”? You could filter out “opinion” pieces.

            1. 1

              Problem with that is that common usage of an “opinion” tag would basically end up as “this article voices an opinion”…may or may not be backed up by facts.

              “fluff” maybe? :|

              1. 1

                Maybe it is better to call out what we want rather than what we don’t? A tag for those wonderful articles that link to all their sources and core materials they build on top of?

                Seems like a way to encourage solid articles, without penalizing the more common. “Sourced” or something.

        2. 2

          I specifically do not post every single article about Rust here. My opinion is roughly the same as @skade’s, and is the reason I posted it.