Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

goodoldweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 178 posts

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#31

Post by aaron-lebo »

mseebach wrote: post #29
aaron-lebo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Web 2.0" came around about 2004ish with Digg and other sites using AJAX. Or at least static content was not the defining factor. There were plenty of forums around in the late 90s with dynamic content.

Wikipedia disagrees. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

Yeah I was looking at that too. The definition is kind of nonsensical. Slashdot met that definition in 1997 but nobody was calling it that at the time. Web 2.0 became a very popular buzzword with Digg, Flickr etc. Or at least that's how I remember it, the author is not "wrong" for referring to it by a very popular definition.

Also see:

http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html

I think everyone would agree that democracy and Ajax are elements of "Web 2.0."

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#32

Post by Eyas »

Looks like you'll need to start moderating this already, as of an hour ago, at least.

The process of setting up a public sandbox for users to play with seems like it should be easy, but abusive/obscene posts by users make a testing sandbox unusable/NSFW very easily.

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#33

Post by mseebach »

CM30 wrote: post #30
mseebach wrote: post #26

Ok, sorry, bitter old man coming through: this is Web 2.0, not 1.0. For all the buzzwords, Web 2.0 was defined by the dynamic interactive solicitation of user input as opposed to Web 1.0 being just static HTML. I don't think we've coined a good catchphrase for fat applications implemented in tons of Javascript with only lightweight AJAX calls to the backend. And then, of course, there's Web 0.1: https://thedailywtf.c…

Nah, this is as 1.0 as you can get, assuming you're not asking for completely unstyled text. Forum scripts with this sort of simplicity were around for decades, with UBB being created in 1996 (and having significantly more features than this software), and basic scripts like WWWBoard dating back to 1995 or earlier. It was AJAX and processing data via JavaScript that was a web 2.0 thing (for the most part), not just s…

2.0 is not about a switchover date, it's functionality, or even philosophy. Mid-90s forums would be understood as visionary betas of Web 2.0 under this terminology. I concede that Orange Forum is definitely very early 2.0, possibly even very late 1.0, but it it most definitely not "as 1.0 as you can get". That would be static websites with at most a guest book and/or email form.

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#34

Post by czep »

Aardwolf wrote: post #25

So much whitespace in the demo. Real web 1.0 forums can fit way more thread titles on screen ;)

> So much whitespace in the demo.

This. If you want old school, go with 10px Verdana, and pad sparingly. I want information, not negative space dammit! With pine, my email editor in 1995, I could read 40 subject lines on a 640x480 screen. With Gmail (in compact mode) on an MBP retina, I get 36. Progress, indeed. Designers 1, Users 0.

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#35

Post by mseebach »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #31
mseebach wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia disagrees. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

Yeah I was looking at that too. The definition is kind of nonsensical. Slashdot met that definition in 1997 but nobody was calling it that at the time. Web 2.0 became a very popular buzzword with Digg, Flickr etc. Or at least that's how I remember it, the author is not "wrong" for referring to it by a very popular definition. Also see: http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html I think everyone would agree that democracy a…

What's nonsensical about it? Slashdot was very avant-garde, so fits well for a term coined in 1999. I agree that AJAX represented somewhat of a technological watershed, but wikis and blogs (which came of age pre-AJAX) represented a social watershed, a much better anchor for the democracy that PG seems to consider only from a technical perspective.

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#36

Post by aaron-lebo »

mseebach wrote: post #35
aaron-lebo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I was looking at that too. The definition is kind of nonsensical. Slashdot met that definition in 1997 but nobody was calling it that at the time. Web 2.0 became a very popular buzzword with Digg, Flickr etc. Or at least that's how I remember it, the author is not "wrong" for referring to it by a very popular definition. Also see: http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.html I think everyone would agree that democracy a…

What's nonsensical about it? Slashdot was very avant-garde, so fits well for a term coined in 1999. I agree that AJAX represented somewhat of a technological watershed, but wikis and blogs (which came of age pre-AJAX) represented a social watershed, a much better anchor for the democracy that PG seems to consider only from a technical perspective.

This is from the criticism section of your link, by a Brit who would know better than most:

Nobody really knows what it means... If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along... Web 2.0, for some people, it means moving some of the thinking [to the] client side, so making it more immediate, but the idea of the Web as interaction between people is really what the Web is. That was what it was designed to be... a collaborative space where people can interact.

He's also called it jargon. It's not a well-defined term (or at least there are multiple definitions for it).

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#37

Post by czep »

Eyas wrote: post #32

Looks like you'll need to start moderating this already, as of an hour ago, at least. The process of setting up a public sandbox for users to play with seems like it should be easy, but abusive/obscene posts by users make a testing sandbox unusable/NSFW very easily.

What are good strategies for combatting such abuse? Validate email before posting, forbidden word lists, active site moderators?

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#38

Post by always_good »

I built a forum from scratch once and it is a comical amount of work.

The initial CRUD weekend-ware is straight forward. LIMIT/OFFSET for pagination. Throw in some Markdown support. Seems easy enough.

But the devil is in all the individual features that make a forum usable. Like getting notified when someone @mentions or replies to you, marking threads that you've posted in, tracking the high watermark per user per thread so you can create a "go to first unread post", implementing a decent search, making deep pagination fast, a PM system, trying to generalize it.

A serious amount of breadth between weekend #1 and production if your users want the feature set of Xenforo. The main positive I can say is that my forum is cheap to host.

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#39

Post by rhizome »

mseebach wrote: post #26

Ok, sorry, bitter old man coming through: this is Web 2.0, not 1.0. For all the buzzwords, Web 2.0 was defined by the dynamic interactive solicitation of user input as opposed to Web 1.0 being just static HTML. I don't think we've coined a good catchphrase for fat applications implemented in tons of Javascript with only lightweight AJAX calls to the backend. And then, of course, there's Web 0.1: https://thedailywtf.c…

JS aside, this is an implementation almost to the level of the forums at e.g. Discogs, which are pretty dang Web 1.0 featureless.

https://www.discogs.com/group/

https://www.discogs.com/group/3

Re: Show HN: Orange Forum – Web 1.0 style forum written in Go

#40

Post by HumanDrivenDev »

czep wrote: post #34
Aardwolf wrote: post #25

So much whitespace in the demo. Real web 1.0 forums can fit way more thread titles on screen ;)

> So much whitespace in the demo. This. If you want old school, go with 10px Verdana, and pad sparingly. I want information, not negative space dammit! With pine, my email editor in 1995, I could read 40 subject lines on a 640x480 screen. With Gmail (in compact mode) on an MBP retina, I get 36. Progress, indeed. Designers 1, Users 0.

The amount of padding in modern websites drives up the wall. The idea that I bought a 24" monitor just so I can read text in fullscreen is ridiculous.

One trick I often use is to have the window take half (or less) of the screen and spoof my browser to be Chrome on Android Kit Kat. I just wish there was a change to have a different browser spoofed per tab, or maybe a "whitelist" of websites that are designed well enough that I won't pretend I'm on a phone.

Post reply on HN