[avgcorrection]

Useless title for HN.[1] A compiler tells me that it’s some language that can be compiled. “Break” tells me that either the compiler is mature and the author is daring someone to fuzz it, or that the compiler is not mature and hence it’s easy to find something that “breaks” while using it (it’s the latter).

Would I break someone’s program? I have no reason to care about their program based on this title.

[1] Of course there’s the “no ediotoralizing” rule. Even though it’s submitted by the original author.

[remon]

A particularly low value contribution. The title is a copy of the article's title and pretty accurately captures its content. This is being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

[avgcorrection]

A meta-complaint about a meta-complaint. Wonderfully on-topic in the HN posting spirit. :)

[benj111]

While I'd never heard of the language or compiler before, so unless you want a title that covers the blog post, I don't know how you want to get rid of your objections.

[avgcorrection]

Blog post with submission title: “Fault is a language for modeling systems that compiles down to SMT”

This is in the power of the submitter since the submitter is the author of this piece.

[cinntaile]

That would be an incorrect description of the content. The point of the article isn't to introduce the language, the point is to sollicit feedback.

[cinntaile]

The article perfectly explains why the author wants you to break the compiler. It's so it can be improved and to do that user feedback (by breaking the compiler) is needed.

[avgcorrection]

“Test my software”

I’ll get right on that.

[aprilnya]

The title isn’t editorialized. The title on HN is exactly the same as the original blog post

[avgcorrection]

Of course it isn’t. That’s what I wrote. “Of course there’s the “no ediotoralizing” rule” to acknowledge and preempt the “no editorializing” responses. But (as I wrote) the submitter and the author are the same person.

[aprilnya]

Oops, misunderstood