3 ms·

> Nowadays we expected programs like: `Twitter`. A program that cannot be developed by one person but hundreds (don't ask me why, I don't get it either), I'd s

> Nowadays we expected programs like: `Twitter`. A program that cannot be developed by one person but hundreds (don't ask me why, I don't get it either), I'd say this is wrong. Creating a twitter-clone is simple, and can be done by one person. The hundreds are neccessary for making it scale and managable. And many of those hundred are even there for the content, not the tool. They filter out fakenews and nasty behaviour, monetize the platform and do all kind of other things which are not in the realm of Unix-tools itself.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
Twitter the server is hard and requires hundreds, twitter the client is easy and requires 1.
- slightwinder 6y ago
  What client?
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    by client I mean anything that allows you to send tweets and read whatever tweets you are currently subscribed to, so a theoretical command line client for twitter (assuming of course the twitter api allows that kind of thing nowadays which I am not at all sure of)
    - slightwinder 6y ago
      Ok, I disagree. Such a client is even more work. Because you need to add an additional API for connecting this client, and recreate the whole interface again in a different environment. No, doing a twitter-clone is quite simple, because the interface is not very complicated. It's even on the usual list of tutorial-examples these days. So in worst case you can just copy&paste the whole interface from somewhere. The backend is also not quite complicated for an average developer. The hard part in doing twitter is scaling up your poor clone which works well enough in a single instance for some hundred users, to an architecture of multiple instance serving million users. But this comparison is unfair, because the original telnet-client&server was also only a single instance-solution, not some upscaled monster for millions. Even though a twitter-clone still needs a bit more knowledge than telnet, it's still on a level one person alone can handle.
      - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
        >The hard part in doing twitter is scaling up your poor clone which works well enough in a single instance for some hundred users, to an architecture of multiple instance serving million users. That's twitter the server right there. twitter the client is sending in your tweets, and showing you a list of tweets from other people you are subscribed to in some order - probably chronological. The twitter client does not need to keep any data (between sessions) but should be usable with just sending off requests for data from twitter's public APIs and posting your tweets to same. (assuming of course as I said that twitter APIs give access to this which I am not sure of)
- lima 6y ago
  > Twitter the server is hard and requires hundreds, twitter the client is easy and requires 1. You are severely understimating the amount of work that goes into a (web) client application that is being used by as many people as Twitter's - UX design and testing, accessibility, internationalization, browser compatibility (including lots of exotic ones you may never have heard of)...

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

Twitter the server is hard and requires hundreds, twitter the client is easy and requires 1.

slightwinder 6y ago
What client?
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  by client I mean anything that allows you to send tweets and read whatever tweets you are currently subscribed to, so a theoretical command line client for twitter (assuming of course the twitter api allows that kind of thing nowadays which I am not at all sure of)
  - slightwinder 6y ago
    Ok, I disagree. Such a client is even more work. Because you need to add an additional API for connecting this client, and recreate the whole interface again in a different environment. No, doing a twitter-clone is quite simple, because the interface is not very complicated. It's even on the usual list of tutorial-examples these days. So in worst case you can just copy&paste the whole interface from somewhere. The backend is also not quite complicated for an average developer. The hard part in doing twitter is scaling up your poor clone which works well enough in a single instance for some hundred users, to an architecture of multiple instance serving million users. But this comparison is unfair, because the original telnet-client&server was also only a single instance-solution, not some upscaled monster for millions. Even though a twitter-clone still needs a bit more knowledge than telnet, it's still on a level one person alone can handle.
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      >The hard part in doing twitter is scaling up your poor clone which works well enough in a single instance for some hundred users, to an architecture of multiple instance serving million users. That's twitter the server right there. twitter the client is sending in your tweets, and showing you a list of tweets from other people you are subscribed to in some order - probably chronological. The twitter client does not need to keep any data (between sessions) but should be usable with just sending off requests for data from twitter's public APIs and posting your tweets to same. (assuming of course as I said that twitter APIs give access to this which I am not sure of)
lima 6y ago
> Twitter the server is hard and requires hundreds, twitter the client is easy and requires 1. You are severely understimating the amount of work that goes into a (web) client application that is being used by as many people as Twitter's - UX design and testing, accessibility, internationalization, browser compatibility (including lots of exotic ones you may never have heard of)...