4 ms·

Same thought process for me, but I decided not to read. I doubt more than 5% of the community thinks they can reimplement StackOverflow in a weekend.

by tsally 17y ago

maukdaddy 17y ago
Apparently you did read it.
- tsally 17y ago
  If by it you mean the original thread and/or the parent comment to mine, then yes. Fairly simple to infer the subject on the post from these two pieces of information.
TomOfTTB 17y ago
I'd wager even less. If you search the thread he refers to (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=678398 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=678398) you see the original guy who said it would take a weekend only got 6 upvotes and the guy who claimed he could clone it over a weekend only got 4. So I think someone's just trying to get to the top of HN with a provacative title (which in all fairness was a plan that seems to have worked perfectly)
- thorax 17y ago
  And I enjoyed reading it. I think it serves as a great reminder to all those who think it's quick to clone stuff. It might not be hard work sometimes for some sites. But it surely isn't trivial and surely isn't cheap (especially time-wise). Guys, that's also why people will pay for your "free" web apps. When they improve their lives and are "easy" for you to write, the time and money to recreate even the easiest site is a barrier that they have.
icey 17y ago
It's a pretty interesting article, if you can look past the link-baity title. Although, the topics he covers do address a larger part of HN than just the guy who said he could clone StackOverflow in a weekend.
MaysonL 17y ago
And only about .1% of the community could actually do it.
- tsally 17y ago
  I think the point is that 0% of the community could do it.
  - sho 17y ago
    0% is pretty black and white. Many people here are in control of serious teams and I have no doubt they could duplicate SO in a weekend if they really wanted to. Of course they wouldn't, but still, it's not impossible, which is what "0% could" implies.

Same thought process for me, but I decided not to read. I doubt more than 5% of the community thinks they can reimplement StackOverflow in a weekend.

by tsally 17y ago

Same thought process for me, but I decided not to read. I doubt more than 5% of the community thinks they can reimplement StackOverflow in a weekend.

maukdaddy 17y ago

Apparently you did read it.

tsally 17y ago
If by it you mean the original thread and/or the parent comment to mine, then yes. Fairly simple to infer the subject on the post from these two pieces of information.

TomOfTTB 17y ago

I'd wager even less. If you search the thread he refers to (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=678398 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=678398) you see the original guy who said it would take a weekend only got 6 upvotes and the guy who claimed he could clone it over a weekend only got 4. So I think someone's just trying to get to the top of HN with a provacative title (which in all fairness was a plan that seems to have worked perfectly)

thorax 17y ago
And I enjoyed reading it. I think it serves as a great reminder to all those who think it's quick to clone stuff. It might not be hard work sometimes for some sites. But it surely isn't trivial and surely isn't cheap (especially time-wise). Guys, that's also why people will pay for your "free" web apps. When they improve their lives and are "easy" for you to write, the time and money to recreate even the easiest site is a barrier that they have.

icey 17y ago

It's a pretty interesting article, if you can look past the link-baity title. Although, the topics he covers do address a larger part of HN than just the guy who said he could clone StackOverflow in a weekend.

MaysonL 17y ago

And only about .1% of the community could actually do it.

tsally 17y ago
I think the point is that 0% of the community could do it.
- sho 17y ago
  0% is pretty black and white. Many people here are in control of serious teams and I have no doubt they could duplicate SO in a weekend if they really wanted to. Of course they wouldn't, but still, it's not impossible, which is what "0% could" implies.