sintaxi

51 ms·

511.
by sintaxi 13y ago
NodeJS is plenty fast enough. When the dust settles we will provide benchmarks alongside NGINX. We're not pulling the wool over anyones eyes, I don't expect Harp to reach NGINX speeds anytime soon (or perhaps ever). That is not th
512.
by sintaxi 13y ago
cool. tup looks sweet. Yes, the lazy compile (JIT) or "build on request" as you put it plays a huge factor when it comes to performance. Because it doesn't rebuild the world each time there is a change it is able to expend th
513.
by sintaxi 13y ago
fixed. Thanks :)
514.
by sintaxi 13y ago
The graphs are taken from google trend an so unfortunately the units are relative to each other. Sorry, I should have mentioned that. Fixed.
515.
by sintaxi 13y ago
Harp does work great as a Static Site Generator but the reason why we avoid that term is that there have been several cases of people using Harp as a SSG by running the compile step each time they save a file. This is how they expected it t
516.
by sintaxi 13y ago
Configuring Grunt to do this every time you want to ship a web app seems like a path to insanity to me. Also, NGINX doesn't by default give you clean urls and 404 fallbacks. Web frameworks do this for you and IMHO It's time static
517.
by sintaxi 13y ago
I look at it this way, we basically have two types of web servers, static and full-stack web frameworks. What if all you want is a static web server but you need a way for your files to share a common layout? If you don't have any serv
518.
by sintaxi 13y ago
We are drafting a spec so this will hopefully happen one day (still a work in progress). http://spec.harp.io/ I think the big challenge will be with the languages themselves. LESS, Stylus, CoffeeScript, and Jade are all imp
519.
Show HN: Introducing Harp – A static web server with built in preprocessing(sintaxi.com)
233 points by sintaxi 13y ago|75 comments
520.
by sintaxi 13y ago
Congrats on the significant milestone. All the best moving forward.
521.
by sintaxi 13y ago
Yes. The footprint matters. All that JS has to be parsed by the browser. The difference is not negligible.
522.
by sintaxi 13y ago
It's not the size, it's the footprint. And it very much matters on mobile.
523.
by sintaxi 13y ago
One is 272kb and the other is 78kb. This should be noted at the beginning of any article making such a comparison.
524.
by sintaxi 13y ago
Wow. looks fantastic. Breaks my heart this is not MIT/BSD or Apache2. Still a great addition to the community though. Thanks.
525.
by sintaxi 14y ago
Looks like I chimed in 4 minutes late. Perfectly said, thank you.
526.
by sintaxi 14y ago
Co-creator of PhoneGap here. This isn't much different from using phonegap and that is the point. PhoneGap was created because this is how we felt SDKs should be designed. The difference here is that Mozilla built FirefoxOS from the ground
527.
by sintaxi 14y ago
I got an email asking the same question. Without going into specifics here is what I can say at this time. I have not used site44 so I cant speak in depth about the differences. I can say Harp will be focused on solving domain specific prob
528.
by sintaxi 14y ago
these are precisely the problems we are thinking of. Harp came about from what we learned developing and using PhoneGap. Nothing in the architecture makes Harp a mobile specific platform but these are the use cases that drive the platform.
529.
by sintaxi 14y ago
Rather than doing a long term private beta. We are gearing up to go directly to a public beta very soon. Those that sign up on the list will be first to be notified when we go public.
530.
by sintaxi 14y ago
Thanks! Agreed. Dropbox is a significant step forward when it comes to getting assets into the cloud. I think it will make life much easier to be able to iterate on sites within a directory on your file system with no extra bagage.
531.
by sintaxi 14y ago
As a general rule of thumb anything that generates static assets will be a perfect companion for Harp. There are some other goodies too, but we are still experimenting with those features.
532.
by sintaxi 14y ago
yep. we have CNAME support.
533.
by sintaxi 14y ago
Hey everyone, I'm one of the creators of the Harp Platform. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them.
534.
by sintaxi 14y ago
It's a footprint issue, not latency. A 94k jQuery file comes at a price and 99% of that codebase never gets hit for an application like this.
535.
by sintaxi 14y ago
some of us prefer to see it as native vs web all over again ;)
536.
by sintaxi 14y ago
No. What I am saying is RubyMotion does not exempt you from understanding your environment.
537.
You half assed it. That is why your PhoneGap application sucks.(sintaxi.com)
96 points by sintaxi 14y ago|110 comments
538.
by sintaxi 15y ago
GoDaddy is no longer on the list of SOPA supporters, but does that mean it no longer supports SOPA??