2 ms·

Excellent submission. I wish it went into some more detail on how they integrate those mini apps into the site or handle their failure but it was probably alrea

Excellent submission. I wish it went into some more detail on how they integrate those mini apps into the site or handle their failure but it was probably already long enough. This a Table also rebuilt the entire legacy Java frontend replacing the entire 155,000 lines of have with about 4000 lines of Clojure was particularly impressive since a Table is just a small team of up to six people. I also skimmed the front page of http://www.dailymail.co.uk http://www.dailymail.co.uk and don't understand the allergic reactions in the comments here. A guy built a hobbit hut, some celebrity gossip, sports, more gossip... rather unremarkable. For a website this big (32k pixels according to the article) it does load pretty quickly. Faster than a product page on Amazon (at least for me from Central Europe).

choult 13y ago
I believe the use of the phrase "all grown up" juxtaposed with loud headlines about the evils of paedophilia is one such reason the Daily Mail is reviled.
JonnieCache 13y ago
The online version is a different beast to the print version.
alan_cx 13y ago
There is a difference between the Daily Mail newspaper, which is a scare mongering right wing hate rag which has as much relation to truth and news as say Fox News, and its website which is pretty much a celeb stuff and sort of a soft porn peddler. Its a weird pairing under the same brand. I don't know, but I don't think there is much crossover between the users of the paper and website. Personally, I find both hideous, but Im at a loss to accept that some one who gets all up set about gay marriage, immigrants, and the alleged loss of Englishness, what ever that is or was, is in any way interested in a Kardashian thing.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
  It's very difficult to hold any extreme view - right or left - without begin hypocritical[1]. The DM just excels at it. [1] And, at an individual level, without encouraging the trashier elements of the media to expend enormous amounts of energy to expose those hypocrisies, however significant.
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    Well, sort of, the web site is the newspaper's hypocrisy. No? You are correct, the DM does excel at what it does. On the face of it, the impression I get is that the paper does have a consistent vibe. I mean, I despise its views, but I do have to admit that it is very good at what it does. It is fairly rock solid in its opinions and politics. I would use lots of words to slag the paper off, but I don't think hypocrisy is one of them. But then maybe, people who read it, for either pleasure or pain, may well have many examples of hypocrisy.
    - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
      I don't read it, but I am aware of a) its rabid obsession with pedophiles b) it's 'sidebar of shame' which frequently features very young women in various states of undress. That, I call hypocrisy.
    - mogrim 13y ago
      The canonical example of DM hypocrisy is its stand "for decency" while filling its pages with image after image of semi-dressed celebrities: http://cdn.recombu.com/digital/images/news/M10326/1335269711_w670_h257.png http://cdn.recombu.com/digital/images/news/M10326/1335269711...
hipsters_unite 13y ago
A recent scandal in the UK happened when the Mail publicly called a leading politician's father 'evil' as he was a Marxist. He was also a respected academic at a leading institution and fought for Britain against the Nazis, whereas the Mail was pro-appeasement and its owner friends with Hitler. Without wishing to appeal to Godwin's law, it's that kind of bald-faced moral pronouncement (with no regard to institutional hypocrisy) on subjects from immigration to gay rights that makes the Mail so divisive.

choult 13y ago

I believe the use of the phrase "all grown up" juxtaposed with loud headlines about the evils of paedophilia is one such reason the Daily Mail is reviled.

JonnieCache 13y ago

The online version is a different beast to the print version.

alan_cx 13y ago

There is a difference between the Daily Mail newspaper, which is a scare mongering right wing hate rag which has as much relation to truth and news as say Fox News, and its website which is pretty much a celeb stuff and sort of a soft porn peddler. Its a weird pairing under the same brand. I don't know, but I don't think there is much crossover between the users of the paper and website. Personally, I find both hideous, but Im at a loss to accept that some one who gets all up set about gay marriage, immigrants, and the alleged loss of Englishness, what ever that is or was, is in any way interested in a Kardashian thing.

oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
It's very difficult to hold any extreme view - right or left - without begin hypocritical[1]. The DM just excels at it. [1] And, at an individual level, without encouraging the trashier elements of the media to expend enormous amounts of energy to expose those hypocrisies, however significant.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Well, sort of, the web site is the newspaper's hypocrisy. No? You are correct, the DM does excel at what it does. On the face of it, the impression I get is that the paper does have a consistent vibe. I mean, I despise its views, but I do have to admit that it is very good at what it does. It is fairly rock solid in its opinions and politics. I would use lots of words to slag the paper off, but I don't think hypocrisy is one of them. But then maybe, people who read it, for either pleasure or pain, may well have many examples of hypocrisy.
  - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
    I don't read it, but I am aware of a) its rabid obsession with pedophiles b) it's 'sidebar of shame' which frequently features very young women in various states of undress. That, I call hypocrisy.
  - mogrim 13y ago
    The canonical example of DM hypocrisy is its stand "for decency" while filling its pages with image after image of semi-dressed celebrities: http://cdn.recombu.com/digital/images/news/M10326/1335269711_w670_h257.png http://cdn.recombu.com/digital/images/news/M10326/1335269711...

hipsters_unite 13y ago

A recent scandal in the UK happened when the Mail publicly called a leading politician's father 'evil' as he was a Marxist. He was also a respected academic at a leading institution and fought for Britain against the Nazis, whereas the Mail was pro-appeasement and its owner friends with Hitler. Without wishing to appeal to Godwin's law, it's that kind of bald-faced moral pronouncement (with no regard to institutional hypocrisy) on subjects from immigration to gay rights that makes the Mail so divisive.