9 ms·

HN has the luxury of being able to make few high level changes over years, though. It might be tougher to maintain that single box elegance and performance if t

HN has the luxury of being able to make few high level changes over years, though. It might be tougher to maintain that single box elegance and performance if they were adding new features every month or two (which is much more applicable to the rest of us).

pasta 8y ago
I don't understand this comment. Why should adding features make an app crumble on a single server? I think the point is that good software is able to serve a lot of users on a single server. A great example imho is Blender. Features are added constantly but because the software is modular it doesn't have any impact on the overall performance. Today the problem is that adding features means: adding the latest and greatest lib while having absolutely no idea about the inner workings. Yes it takes time to write your own libs. But when performance is an issue you will either have to write your own lib or take one that is good and tested.
- moduspol 8y ago
  > Why should adding features make an app crumble on a single server? It's not inherent, but obviously as you have more developers working on more and more things independently, each with different needs, tolerances, and deadlines, it becomes increasingly unreasonable to presume it can all be managed well on a single box. If they went and added chat, or Twitter-like features, or subreddits, or similar, it might be a lot tougher to keep it all on a single box. It's a lot easier when we're all looking at the same top 30 stories, and pretty limited in how we interact with them and each other.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  > A great example imho is Blender. Features are added constantly but because the software is modular it doesn't have any impact on the overall performance. As someone who used to hack on Blender all I can say is it's a big ball of inter-dependent modules all with interlocking dependencies. The only thing that really keeps it manageable is the strict adherence to MVC which, I suppose, does make it modular.
sillysaurus3 8y ago
They add new features constantly. I'd be surprised if there was a single week with no new features being developed. Most of the work is server side, e.g. voting ring detection. We only notice indirectly, when the quality of the site goes up.
- moduspol 8y ago
  To me the comparison just isn't there. The user experience here could be identical to how it was in the '90s. It's certainly something to marvel at to some extent, but a lot of us could get a pretty high level of elegance in our backend if our user experience had no reason to change for 10+ years.
  - ahartmetz 8y ago
    The user experience is very simple and that's a good thing, too. I much prefer HN's UX over Reddit's, which is painfully slow on mobile and noticeably slower on desktop browsers.
  - sillysaurus3 8y ago
    To see how quickly HN changed in the old days, skim the feature requests thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=363 Some feature requests were a matter of days, like user profiles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=481 A brief essay on some HN design decisions: https://pastebin.com/bSW5dfRQ https://pastebin.com/bSW5dfRQ (from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8424502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8424502) I think the arc codebase is worth studying and understanding, primarily so that you can extend its simplicity into your own projects. The reason HN was such a success is because it handles so many cases in the same way: Stories, comments, and polls are all the same thing: items. If you want to add a new thing, you just create a new item and add whatever fields you want. These rapid prototyping techniques have downsides, but the cure is to keep in mind what you can't do. (For example, you can't rename item keys without breaking existing items, so be sure to choose good names.) Like emacs, HN's design is borne out of simplicity and generality. It's what you get when you write the next most important feature as quickly as possible, then cut as much code as possible, every day. Both halves are equally important. It's fine to say that our modern applications are so much more complicated that the old lessons don't apply. And in extreme cases, that may be true. I don't think SpaceX has the luxury of rapid prototyping their software. But the typical app is CRUD. For those, data processing flexibility is perhaps the most important factor in whether you can write new features quickly. And since code is data, a lisp master can write systems with a shocking number of features in shockingly few lines of code. (See Jak'n'dexter: https://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/03/12/making-crash-bandicoot-gool-part-9/ https://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/03/12/making-crash-ba...)

pasta 8y ago

I don't understand this comment. Why should adding features make an app crumble on a single server? I think the point is that good software is able to serve a lot of users on a single server. A great example imho is Blender. Features are added constantly but because the software is modular it doesn't have any impact on the overall performance. Today the problem is that adding features means: adding the latest and greatest lib while having absolutely no idea about the inner workings. Yes it takes time to write your own libs. But when performance is an issue you will either have to write your own lib or take one that is good and tested.

moduspol 8y ago
> Why should adding features make an app crumble on a single server? It's not inherent, but obviously as you have more developers working on more and more things independently, each with different needs, tolerances, and deadlines, it becomes increasingly unreasonable to presume it can all be managed well on a single box. If they went and added chat, or Twitter-like features, or subreddits, or similar, it might be a lot tougher to keep it all on a single box. It's a lot easier when we're all looking at the same top 30 stories, and pretty limited in how we interact with them and each other.
UncleEntity 8y ago
> A great example imho is Blender. Features are added constantly but because the software is modular it doesn't have any impact on the overall performance. As someone who used to hack on Blender all I can say is it's a big ball of inter-dependent modules all with interlocking dependencies. The only thing that really keeps it manageable is the strict adherence to MVC which, I suppose, does make it modular.

sillysaurus3 8y ago

They add new features constantly. I'd be surprised if there was a single week with no new features being developed. Most of the work is server side, e.g. voting ring detection. We only notice indirectly, when the quality of the site goes up.

moduspol 8y ago
To me the comparison just isn't there. The user experience here could be identical to how it was in the '90s. It's certainly something to marvel at to some extent, but a lot of us could get a pretty high level of elegance in our backend if our user experience had no reason to change for 10+ years.
- ahartmetz 8y ago
  The user experience is very simple and that's a good thing, too. I much prefer HN's UX over Reddit's, which is painfully slow on mobile and noticeably slower on desktop browsers.
- sillysaurus3 8y ago
  To see how quickly HN changed in the old days, skim the feature requests thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=363 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=363 Some feature requests were a matter of days, like user profiles: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=481 A brief essay on some HN design decisions: https://pastebin.com/bSW5dfRQ https://pastebin.com/bSW5dfRQ (from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8424502 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8424502) I think the arc codebase is worth studying and understanding, primarily so that you can extend its simplicity into your own projects. The reason HN was such a success is because it handles so many cases in the same way: Stories, comments, and polls are all the same thing: items. If you want to add a new thing, you just create a new item and add whatever fields you want. These rapid prototyping techniques have downsides, but the cure is to keep in mind what you can't do. (For example, you can't rename item keys without breaking existing items, so be sure to choose good names.) Like emacs, HN's design is borne out of simplicity and generality. It's what you get when you write the next most important feature as quickly as possible, then cut as much code as possible, every day. Both halves are equally important. It's fine to say that our modern applications are so much more complicated that the old lessons don't apply. And in extreme cases, that may be true. I don't think SpaceX has the luxury of rapid prototyping their software. But the typical app is CRUD. For those, data processing flexibility is perhaps the most important factor in whether you can write new features quickly. And since code is data, a lisp master can write systems with a shocking number of features in shockingly few lines of code. (See Jak'n'dexter: https://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/03/12/making-crash-bandicoot-gool-part-9/ https://all-things-andy-gavin.com/2011/03/12/making-crash-ba...)