Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | gayprogrammer's commentslogin

Was this written recently?

Exclusive use of jQuery, not using browser drag and drop (manually edits element position), using JS to animate and fade/transition instead of CSS, etc.

Is localStorage the only modern/HTML5 concept being used?


It was written when I needed a kanban board done to my specs in a minimum amount of time using whatever things I was most comfortable with.


> Exclusive use of jQuery, not using browser drag and drop (manually edits element position), using JS to animate and fade/transition instead of CSS, etc.

What's wrong with any of these?

I get that you may not personally want to work on a project like this, but as a tool you either use or don't, what does it matter whether localStorage is the only "modern" concept being used?

Not saying this to be polemic, I would genuinely like to know why as programmers we're always so critical of each others' tools.


As opposed to what? It's supposed to be a single page so why is jQuery a bad option? Only issue to point out maybe about composability, but Can any of the modern frameworks produce a single page solution?


Vue definetly could, I have a single page music/note sequencer done in it that is maybe a bit more complicated than this so yes (I really should find the time to make it public and maybe showHN, made a parse backend to it but had to leave it mid due to real-life commitments).


After trying to use HTML5 drag once, I would say never again. Unless I needed to accept files from a local file system or something. The HTML5 drag API is significantly worse than using mouse move events and absolute positioning in my experience.


What is browser drag grop?


i assume https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTML_Drag_a...

i just learned of it from this comment. cool!


Drag and drop is not supported by all browsers so You can not use it in real world


I think for a personal project that you use for your own ends, you can use whatever you like:)

But in general, I agree!


There are many things possible that no one has written software to do yet. I think it mostly comes down to money, market, and difficulty.


I think there would be a market, if people could write ios apps or answer message (like airdroid) on any operating system. But maybe as just an open source project.


I was thinking about why Wingdings, a popular phenomenon in Word docs, didn’t translate into the web, chat, and mobile SMS until the iPhone let us add the Japanese emoji keyboard.

The technical difference that I can see is that Wingdings is mapped to English letters (I.E. the same code points), whereas emoji are mapped to their own code points. So while Wingdings are typed using the standard keyboard, emoji (still today) requires a dedicated program/menu/keyboard to select them.

Additionally, font is often ignored/lost in transmission, in things like email, web text boxes, SMS. So what made emoji just work is that it used unique code points, not reusing other characters’ code points.


I suspect your “additionally” part is in fact the main reason. Emojis in Japanese phones were transmitted not by font information, but dedicated code points like Unicode. East Asian SMS systems need to implement multi-byte encoding for “real characters” anyway so it’s considerably less friction to add some fun ones. That’s much more difficult argument to make if you’re designing a system for the American audience.


> East Asian SMS systems need to implement multi-byte encoding for “real characters” anyway so it’s considerably less friction to add some fun ones. That’s much more difficult argument to make if you’re designing a system for the American audience.

It definitely helped, but the reality is that the carriers also have (had?) complementary e-mail services provided for free or low-cost, which was uncommon in the rest of the world (especially in the '90s and early 2000s!). For example, au (part of KDDI) had implemented their emoji (before standardisation) using image tags.


Screenshot from someone with 40 GB usage: https://imgur.com/gallery/yq7ceSq


Whether the app name will be changed or not, I’m glad that this sort of thing doesn’t happen in silence or under NDA.


Just give Apple time.


Sanitizer is always first choice in hospital settings. It’s MUCH faster, and MUCH easier on the skin over repeated use than soap and water.


Hand Sanitizer, with alcohol, is far more damaging to your skin than soap.


That’s a very nit-picky thing to critique, while ignoring everything the post is writing about.


I think he wants to spread awareness that people in power can use technology and medicine to widen the class divide, and biotechnology shows signs of going that direction.

I think that a biohackers’ line of reasoning goes: the same way that some pills once existed as ground-up herbs, today’s biotech (and vaccines) started as ground-up biomaterial.

Of course people have been hurt from eating herbs and injecting biomaterial, so testing and quality control will always be a massive issue.

I still see a biohackers’ rebuttal, however: sometimes people are hurt by their own cooking, or restaurant food, so the issue of quality control among mass-distributed biomaterial is not totally new, and not insurmountable.


iOS has always used the same kernel as macOS.


Sure, it's all Darwin, but userspace matters a lot - you can do lots of things on MacOS that you can't do on iOS (JIT, arbitrary web engines, assorted emulators, pop a root shell and load arbitrary kernel modules)


And that helps i.e. Docker how?


iOS XNU is compiled with different features than macOS XNU.


They are mostly the same.


Usually a graphic is called a logo because it is used to represent a thing.

Since these geometric designs don’t represent anything yet, it seems premature to call them “logos”.


I feel very sad for the people who are upset because, or couldn't enjoy them because, they don't like how I call them logos.

I did not do this to annoy you, and I feel very sorry for you that this naming has gotten in your way of having a good experience of these. I understand how you feel, and i just feel differently about it.

The logos do represent my company and its products. I could pick some to attach to a particular product.

But so could you. Then that logo would come to represent the thing you attach it to.

Also, you're free to modify these however you like. All in the MIT license.

For me there's no other purpose to these beside being logos. I get if you feel differently about it and that's okay.

If you see them as designs, graphics, alien hieroglyphs, I don't feel angry at you, I'm totally okay with that.

If you want to call them that, I have no problem. But please don't expect me to participate in your naming of the things when my naming of the things makes perfect sense to me.

I feel happy for you that your naming of the things makes sense to you.

In a more general sense...This is not programming, we don't have to have singular unambiguous definitions. There's room for a variety of interpretations. If you want to insist there's only one true way, you go ahead, I'm not stopping you, but please don't expect me to participate in your way, nor in naming things the way you want them to be named. I'll name the things my way, and if you name them differently, I'm okay with that. I hope I've made that clear how i feel about it, and I hope we can all try to understand each other's point of view, rather than pretending that our way is the one right way and everybody else must be wrong. Thank you for helping to provide me with this chance to say clearly what i feel about it.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: