> So did I on a small website...

I was responding to you saying that a comment in a forum that I made was "doing the same thing" as your small website. But it's not equivalent. I didn't make a website, not a paper. I didn't post it as a reference for the community. I am making, what I hope you understand, is a good faith critique. When the critique written in 3 minutes has as much technical merit (says you) as the "paper", that is not good.

> "Which example?"

Your using an example 0.1 + 0.2 != 0.3. This is nothing to do with floating point. This is an issue of choice of fraction base and an issue of precision that could affect any non-analog computation.

> Don't be ridiculous

You understand exactly what I mean. You replaced "Computer Scientist" with "Programmer". Borderline infringement, borderline plagiarism.

> But it is not a good introduction

So did you give one? No. You summarized a very famous paper and tweaked it's title. You provide no real advise for what to do. You provide no practical examples of real world code for "those programmers" that just want to know what to do.

> Maybe. But it is not a good introduction...

Why is it not good? I like that it puts the simple parts first and the formal math later, so you don't get bogged down in it. You're as welcome to your opinion as I am mine.

> I absolutely do not "deride" the Goldberg paper.

Yes you did. Let's say I said "Your website is oversimplified and difficult to navigate. It is garbage." Did I deride yours? [yes. yes i did.]

> I am beginning to think you have serious problems with reading comprehension:

I have serious problems comprehending a disorganized web page with a web 1.0 navigation panel instead of a properly formatted paper.

> You have still not been able...

See above:

- Your example is borderline wrong. It's about a different subject.

- "Programmers" is not a good title when your audience is "Computer Scientists" and "Software Engineers".

- You changed the title in the HN post to obfuscate that you ripped off the original title.

- There is zero creative, or new information presented.

- The most valuable part is the "References" page. In which every single link contains more relevant and accessible information than your "site".

- You aren't even linking to a definitive reference. But instead to an appendix of a user manual Instead of, for example: http://perso.ens-lyon.fr/jean-michel.muller/goldberg.pdf

I think it'd be great stuff if:

- you wrote a little blog

- that introduced the goldberg paper gently

- that augmented and highlighted the references. If they are a little complicated, then explain them. Don't imply "too complicated, you should skip".

- that was able to be printed in a coherent format. Not 8 or 10 different individual web 1.0 frames.

There's a reason academic papers are formatted the way they are. It's actually for precise communication. If you try to "simplify" and make things too much more "accessible" for regular "programmers", you may falsely believe you are helping.

But this is a bad idea. Complex subjects do require some amount of concentration and work to understand. Floating point subtleties are not the lack of a zippy "programmer"-friendly website/blog away from that. You've tried to dumb-down a very introductory paper. It's amateurish and doesn't help.

I appreciate the references. Wouldn't it have just been easier to add them to the Wikipedia article?