Per its revision history, the guide was first published on 1/1/14. This current revision is only a few months old, and besides articles on important C programming techniques by the big toads like Raymond are more or less evergreen content.
I'm not a native English speaker, so "big toad" might be term whose sarcasm escapes me, but there are probably about two dozen people in the world who actually believe that Eric S. Raymond is in any way an authority when it comes to programming (one of them being Eric S. Raymond). The following comic strip of "Everyone loves Eric S. Raymond" sums it up pretty well:
http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/wp-content/images/ep013.jpg
John Romero was making shareware games for years before he met John Carmack. He wrote the level editors, much gameplay code, created many levels for, and significantly contributed to the game design of all the id games from Commander Keen to Quake. His absence is arguably a big part of why most of the later id games just aren't as fun as Doom. Daikatana bombed for a lot of reasons (zero experience as a manager, dotcom-era ridiculousness in hype and project scope, infamously horrible marketing campaign that he had no part in, etc), but not because John Romero was an incompetent programmer or game designer.
If you have the time, watch this series in which John Romero and (Bioshock level designer and apparent Doom fanboy) Jean-Paul LeBreton play through the first episode of Doom and analyze its level design in depth:
Thanks for linking to that video, it was fun to watch. I've looked at the 90s' id games differently ever since I read Masters of Doom 10 years ago (due for a re-read soon) - learning their history made me appreciate those games on a whole new level. Their story was a very big inspiration and motivation boost for my own modest projects.
No, I'm saying that an article by him on a (relatively simple) programming technique is in no way more notable than tens of thousands of other articles on various programming techniques, in contrast to what is being claimed above ("articles [...] by [...] Raymond are more or less evergreen content").
The piece is well written and informative. Lesser minds such as mine even consider it useful.
The content of the article is more or less evergreen. Raymond's celebrity in a constellation of small worlds [deserved or not] makes it more likely to get treated so.
The joke is funny. If Knuth and Ritchie we're the domain for panels one and two though, panel three would get a much larger range. John Skeet, even maybe?
Unless there's some explicit condemnation, I would just assume that "this was on HN before" with a link is just a helpful pointer to more interesting comments.
The conventional HN form is neutral, something along the lines of "Previous HN discussion: <link>."
In American conversational English "this was discussed like a year ago" carries the connotation that another discussion is redundant. It reads in the voice of a teenager's critique.
Just wanted to remark the time period in which it was published before, to give some context. I'm not a native English speaker, so excuse me for the phrasing mishap.
