failing to note the differences is simply dishonest.
Like yourself, I think any reader could understand that this is meant to be a toy implementation. The author even says so in the very first paragraph and at several points in the article thereafter. How is that dishonest?
Comments
Like yourself, I think any reader could understand that this is meant to be a toy implementation. The author even says so in the very first paragraph and at several points in the article thereafter. How is that dishonest?
Because that makes the programs sufficiently different that the conclusion about "smashing" seems dishonest.
Apples smash Oranges, etc.