4 ms·

Are we really so desperate to stick with buzzwords and "hot tech" that we wind up creating Heroku-powered Ruby apps with Bootstrap UI widget-filled pages to ser

by aiiane 13y ago

Are we really so desperate to stick with buzzwords and "hot tech" that we wind up creating Heroku-powered Ruby apps with Bootstrap UI widget-filled pages to serve up a set of 5 static images over HTTP, rather than just, say, uploading them to imgur?

Paul_S 13y ago
I think it says more about humanity circa 2013 that you fail to see the irony of your post. Apologies if you meant it as a joke.
- aiiane 13y ago
  The irony of saying "write less code"? Yes, imgur is itself a service, but it's one with much less complexity (and more generalization) than the OP, and the OP gains nothing from its increased complexity.
  - Paul_S 13y ago
    The difference being that the author of the doomguy website seems to me is just having a laugh and you're being dead serious.
icambron 13y ago
...or maybe it's just for fun.
zalzane 13y ago
I think OP's post is tongue-in-cheek. Like you said, it's essentially 5 different gifs with lots of bootstrap and buzzwords in the title. But hey, it got on the front page too.
spongle 13y ago
Whilst this is a post of derision, I do think people only know the highest level abstraction mankind can accomplish these days. It's embarrassing really. There is elegance in simplicity. Please continue to take the piss out of it :) I actually knocked up a single new static error page for our main web application a few weeks ago in 620 bytes including inline css (quite big if you ask me). It had no dependencies. My coworkers were actually astounded that it was so small!?!?! Go figure!
- gizmo686 13y ago
  For some reason seeing a size expressed in bytes makes it seem small. Saying 620 characters sounds much more reasonable.
  - spongle 13y ago
    It was UTF8 so no guarantee about character versus byte size.
ejfinneran 13y ago
It was just a fun toy app that I whipped up. Didn't mean to offend anyone with my "hot tech". :-)
- tinco 13y ago
  Though I think GP is being a bit of an idiot, I read your source and I was a little surprised. The app only consists of static files, yet you run every request through a rack app that does nothing but send the static files (except for the indexing of the face files, which could've been done ahead of time too). Why?
  - ejfinneran 13y ago
    The idea was that the image URL could just be a number between 0 and 100 and the app would handle translating that to 1 of 5 possible images. If I just served a file for every possible number, the browser would have to potentially download 20x the data.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by aiiane 13y ago

Paul_S 13y ago

I think it says more about humanity circa 2013 that you fail to see the irony of your post. Apologies if you meant it as a joke.

aiiane 13y ago
The irony of saying "write less code"? Yes, imgur is itself a service, but it's one with much less complexity (and more generalization) than the OP, and the OP gains nothing from its increased complexity.
- Paul_S 13y ago
  The difference being that the author of the doomguy website seems to me is just having a laugh and you're being dead serious.

icambron 13y ago

...or maybe it's just for fun.

zalzane 13y ago

I think OP's post is tongue-in-cheek. Like you said, it's essentially 5 different gifs with lots of bootstrap and buzzwords in the title. But hey, it got on the front page too.

spongle 13y ago

Whilst this is a post of derision, I do think people only know the highest level abstraction mankind can accomplish these days. It's embarrassing really. There is elegance in simplicity. Please continue to take the piss out of it :) I actually knocked up a single new static error page for our main web application a few weeks ago in 620 bytes including inline css (quite big if you ask me). It had no dependencies. My coworkers were actually astounded that it was so small!?!?! Go figure!

gizmo686 13y ago
For some reason seeing a size expressed in bytes makes it seem small. Saying 620 characters sounds much more reasonable.
- spongle 13y ago
  It was UTF8 so no guarantee about character versus byte size.

ejfinneran 13y ago

It was just a fun toy app that I whipped up. Didn't mean to offend anyone with my "hot tech". :-)

tinco 13y ago
Though I think GP is being a bit of an idiot, I read your source and I was a little surprised. The app only consists of static files, yet you run every request through a rack app that does nothing but send the static files (except for the indexing of the face files, which could've been done ahead of time too). Why?
- ejfinneran 13y ago
  The idea was that the image URL could just be a number between 0 and 100 and the app would handle translating that to 1 of 5 possible images. If I just served a file for every possible number, the browser would have to potentially download 20x the data.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]