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

We'll pay you $3000/mo to build your startup on Dark

darklang.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 132 posts

Re: We'll pay you $3000/mo to build your startup on Dark

#71

Post by tom_mellior »

chrisseaton wrote: post #50
throwawayjava wrote: post #24

> Your product is not backend-heavy, such as: ...machine-learning models Maybe the meanings of these words have morphed over time, but in what sense is a "machine-learning model" not a back-end concern? It sure as heck isn't front-end... (E.g., the current wiki page for "front and back end" explicitly mentions "converting the symbolic phonetic representation into actual sounds" as an example of a back end concern, an…

> Maybe the meanings of these words have morphed over time, but in what sense is a "machine-learning model" not a back-end concern? It sure as heck isn't front-end... Huh? They're giving it as an example of something that is backend-heavy that they don't want your product to be like. You've got it backwards. > (Your product is (not (backend-heavy, such as: ...machine-learning models)))

> They're giving it as an example of something that is backend-heavy that they don't want your product to be like.

I think it's you who have got it backwards.

Here's the entire thing:

"This probably isn’t a good fit if:

Your product is not backend-heavy, such as: an iPhone game, hardware, machine-learning models, blockchain, or embedded systems."

I read that as "if you're a hardware startup, you're not backend-heavy, so you are not a good fit", "if you're an iPhone game startup, you're not backend-heavy, so you are not a good fit", and yes, also "if you're a machine learning startup, you are not backend-heavy, so you are not a good fit".

Re: We'll pay you $3000/mo to build your startup on Dark

#72

Post by jethro_tell »

temuze wrote: post #62

> We’re creating a new programming language, tightly integrated with an editor, compiler and PaaS, to allow engineers to build distributed applications using high-level primitives. Not sure if this is ambitious enough. Maybe you should make a database, too :) But seriously, you'd have to convince me of a lot of things before I consider using a service like this, much less basing a business off of it: 1) The bar for y…

> "High-level primitives"? "Use APIs as easily as if they were functions"? Honestly, sounds like using AWS services with Boto.

No that's what they are doing, you just use the new language.

Re: We'll pay you $3000/mo to build your startup on Dark

#73

Post by pbiggar »

jlarocco wrote: post #61
MarkyC4 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to their homepage to find this blurb: We’re creating a new programming language, tightly integrated with an editor, compiler and PaaS, to allow engineers to build distributed applications using high-level primitives. We abstract away individual machines and low-level distributed systems code to: * Generate and run scalable infrastructure for you. * Use APIs as easily as if they were functions. * Remove the dep…

Sounds like they're developing Common Lisp, Emacs, and Slime.

Throw in Heroku and Firebase and we're nearly there :)

Re: We'll pay you $3000/mo to build your startup on Dark

#74

Post by ggggtez »

pbiggar wrote: post #60

Lots of folks asking exactly what Dark is so answering separately. tl;dr Dark is a programming language and service. Our goal is to allow you to build backends without having to deal with the endless accidental complexity in software today. (Accidental complexity meaning everything from infrastructure and storage, to syntax errors, etc). What does that mean exactly? Dark is a language, and editor and a PaaS, combined…

Heh, so, $3000 for 1 month of alpha testing your buggy product, essentially... or roughly $19 an hour?

Re: We'll pay you $3000/mo to build your startup on Dark

#75

Post by throwawayjava »

chrisseaton wrote: post #50
throwawayjava wrote: post #24

> Your product is not backend-heavy, such as: ...machine-learning models Maybe the meanings of these words have morphed over time, but in what sense is a "machine-learning model" not a back-end concern? It sure as heck isn't front-end... (E.g., the current wiki page for "front and back end" explicitly mentions "converting the symbolic phonetic representation into actual sounds" as an example of a back end concern, an…

> Maybe the meanings of these words have morphed over time, but in what sense is a "machine-learning model" not a back-end concern? It sure as heck isn't front-end... Huh? They're giving it as an example of something that is backend-heavy that they don't want your product to be like. You've got it backwards. > (Your product is (not (backend-heavy, such as: ...machine-learning models)))

> They're giving it as an example of something that is backend-heavy that they don't want your product to be like. You've got it backwards

Yes, it's clear enough that they don't want you to be a member of that list. But what characterizes the elements of that list?! In any grammatical or intuitive reading of

"This probably isn't a good fit if your product is not backend-heavy, such as: ..."

the "..." is a list of things that are "not backend-heavy". And the first element is "iPhone game", which is certainly an example of something that is "not backend-heavy"!

> (Your product is (not (backend-heavy, such as: ...machine-learning models)))

Oh no! That's horribly confusing and not how lists are used in English! If that's what they meant, the post needs rewording. The correct way to say something like that is e.g., "Your product is back-end heavy but is not [insert delineating characteristics], such as: [insert original list here]".

To return the substance instead of grammar, IMO the "[insert delineating characteristics]" portion of that sentence is exactly what's missing from this advert!

Re: We'll pay you $3000/mo to build your startup on Dark

#78

Post by projectramo »

chrisseaton wrote: post #50
throwawayjava wrote: post #24

> Your product is not backend-heavy, such as: ...machine-learning models Maybe the meanings of these words have morphed over time, but in what sense is a "machine-learning model" not a back-end concern? It sure as heck isn't front-end... (E.g., the current wiki page for "front and back end" explicitly mentions "converting the symbolic phonetic representation into actual sounds" as an example of a back end concern, an…

> Maybe the meanings of these words have morphed over time, but in what sense is a "machine-learning model" not a back-end concern? It sure as heck isn't front-end... Huh? They're giving it as an example of something that is backend-heavy that they don't want your product to be like. You've got it backwards. > (Your product is (not (backend-heavy, such as: ...machine-learning models)))

I would have to agree with the person you are responding to.

The other examples (iphone games, embedded systems) are not back end heavy.

I think what they mean by "back end heavy" is actually CRUD heavy and they put all these systems together under that non-CRUD heavy banner.

Re: We'll pay you $3000/mo to build your startup on Dark

#79

Post by wffurr »

Tangential to the post, but the pages on darklang.com are really fast. They load instantly. I clicked the Medium link and it took a couple seconds to load what was essentially a blank page.

The darklang.com homepage took 70 msec for DOMContentLoaded and was only 25.5 KB total page weight.

That's even including two fonts!

Hacker News is usually my gold standard for a lightweight fast page. And while HN is only 13 KB (no fonts), it's >400 msec for DOMContentLoaded.

Re: We'll pay you $3000/mo to build your startup on Dark

#80

Post by rapsey »

sjm-lbm wrote: post #68
rapsey wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* forever bind you to our services and charge you any amount of money because you have no choice but to pay. If you fail we will just take your business.

Eh, even if what they are promising is only economically viable as a proof of concept, it's probabally still better than the "overengineer a system that nobody ever actually uses" situation that's pretty much the norm now.

No I think locking yourself into financial servitude to some entity is just about the dumbest thing you can do. If you fail you wasted time getting experience not applicable elsewhere, if you succeed they will bleed you dry.
Post reply on HN