> A hash table that compares hashes instead of keys, doesn't support deletion, doesn't distribute keys evenly etc.
I agree, that implementation is definitely flawed. Probably the author do not consider that important a proper hashtable.
> looks like the immature and arrogant opinion of someone completely unaware of his ignorance.
This is what I'm referring to when I say "harsh" criticism. Maybe he is wrong, but I think there are better ways of saying it: "Hey, maybe a proper hashtable is not that easy.. have you consider [insert here improvement proposal]?"
> I would hate to be the creator of Hare and get so much crap for simply daring to exist.
Certainly.
Since the announce of Hare I've seen __too__ much criticism IMHO.
I think the authors have stated clearly the intentions and the features of the language: They just want a slightly better C. Of course you may not like it, but no need to be that harsh...
I really miss this Linux era. Yeah, probably all these effects were not useful, but at least we had something innovative and fun going on in the Linux community, now the best we can hope for is to copy Apple interfaces...
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the quality of the Linux desktop of today, but I don't see anything really different from Windows/Mac apart from getting subpar support from many software/hardware vendors.
Maybe is just nostalgia, or maybe I'm growing old and grumpy...
I agree, that implementation is definitely flawed. Probably the author do not consider that important a proper hashtable.
> looks like the immature and arrogant opinion of someone completely unaware of his ignorance.
This is what I'm referring to when I say "harsh" criticism. Maybe he is wrong, but I think there are better ways of saying it: "Hey, maybe a proper hashtable is not that easy.. have you consider [insert here improvement proposal]?"