[mc3]

Whether it is the lack of an ORM or lack of a "algorithm" that pleases you, this comment has made my day :-).

[hombre_fatal]

I believe they're referring to the lack of algorithmic sorting.

[Jaxan]

I’m not even sure what to think of the term “algorithmic sorting.” Is quicksort considered as algorithmic sorting ... ?

[hombre_fatal]

I'm referring to "algorithmic" in its negative usage as short-hand for what you can see as of late with regard to Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook's suggestion engines where more complex sorting and filtering is happening than a simple ORDER_BY.

Sure, not the best short-hand, but it seems most people understood what I meant.

For example, https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Like this submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20184282 where people will shorten the "evil" to just "the algorithm".

[redwall_hp]

That SQL statement is literally algorithmic sorting...

[mc3]

Yes, I hate it when they manipulate the masses like that. They're so time-ist! Show me that old stuff!

[npo9]

It’s the pure simplicity.

[anonytrary]

Pure simplicity works well when you have little to no users. It's reasonable to think that

  ORDER BY tweet.time DESC

would result in a impractical experience for a site that has millions of DAU.

[lvturner]

Only if you subscribe to everything - if you keep your follower list small, the individual experience doesn't change regardless of the overall size of the platform.

[Nextgrid]

Why would it be? It'll naturally keep your list of followings small (as a large one will be unmanageable) and promote quality over quantity.

[dblohm7]

Personally, I’m pleased by both!