And what we're looking at now is the non-acid version? You seem to have completely missed that the person was implementing something interesting. Here's something for you to do: think about whether, at work, you're good at giving credit to other people publicly. How do you think people feel on reading your code review comments? More junior employees? Are you happy with this?
The edit moved in a good direction and that's worth reinforcing. It's not worth it to pile on further—it risks shaming, which would produce a backlash, which wouldn't benefit anyone.
Thank you dang very much for that explanation. It is a good example of social interaction and of second order effects. You are setting a good role model.
Don't want to start a thread and agree with what dang has said but I do want to give some perspective from my side.
I didn't see the original comment and I may take this better since it isn't my code but I don't ser this comment as negative.
If gives clear criticism which I can easily brush off as the way I want my library to work, but that when I read it I can agree with.
One if my major gripes with many libraries doing asynchronous work is that they just blindly assume I will be using their blessed event loop when in reality I already have an event loop. Which means I now need to put their code in a new thread, regenerate events and pass that to my event loop, that tends to add complexity.
If that was sarcasm, I don't think it landed.
If not, well, let's not discourage people from admitting when they are wrong. It's a healthy thing to do.
