Here's an idea: maybe anyone accusing someone else of being "too ambitious" should share one of their own projects that demonstrates exactly the right level of ambition.
No, some projects can be too ambitious, including even recklessly or dangerously ambitious. But I'd rather hear that judgement from someone with a reputation for appropriate, successful ambitiousness, and with some supporting reasoning.
The grandparent comment comes from a pseudonym linked to no evaluable projects. It offers a costless, totally-generic pooh-poohing of a real project as "too ambitious". But that project is actually shipping code that works, with 126 contributors, many with a known history of contributions in related spheres.
Against that, the comment even uses an appeal to "HN standards"! As if, we should all be discounting this sort of stuff, on its face.
I'd prefer "HN standards" encourage such ambition, backed with code – not casually mock it with a ascii-smiley.
Again, the contributor list in github is WAY misleading, because it accidentally somehow pulled in all the contributors of the libraries we bundled (eg, libuv). We need to fix this, I think.
> But that project is actually shipping code that works
I get that this is more than just vaporware, but getting past the vaporware stage doesn't necessarily prove that something isn't too ambitious. When something is attempting to enact a paradigm shift, the final goal is adoption/usage, not just a working/functional product.
You seem to be using "too ambitious" as a synonym for "unlikely to succeed". But that's something different.
"Too ambitious" implies someone shouldn't even be trying for this goal. That's a corrosive attitude, and I'd like it kept-in-check by a requirement that sources of such negativity show their reasoning/experience/work.
Nevermind the fact that the parent post believes its possible to quantify "exactly the right level of ambition," the poster believes that the only people that should be "allowed" to comment on whether or not something is too ambitious should be people that are currently undertaking ambitious projects themselves.
This smacks of privilege. Not everyone is or can be in a position to pursue ambitious projects. To say that these people should be barred from commentary is ridiculous.
I've not suggested anyone be 'barred' from commentary.
Rather, if you want to dump generic negativity on a real, delivering project, you should justify why your negativity is relevant, for example by documenting your own related efforts.
If you want your cynicism to be respected, then yes, that's a privilege that needs to be earned. You can always say it, but it should be called-out as empty bullshit until backed with detailed reasoning or experience.
