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

Show HN: Auxl – Modular API Client for macOS

auxl.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–39 of 39 posts

Re: Show HN: Auxl – Modular API Client for macOS

#31

Post by [deleted] »

wayneftw wrote: post #27
claymav wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m personally not sure that is a factor for many users, a good web app is as good as a good native app on modern hardware

I only want apps built with Electron or similar! Makes it easy for me to switch platforms, they get developed faster, they're easier for me to contribute to and they are infinitely more hackable. Imagine optimizing your dev tools for battery life? As if I want to work on a single tiny screen all day...or in meetings, hotels, planes, trains...

[deleted]

Re: Show HN: Auxl – Modular API Client for macOS

#32

Post by jaquers »

theFluke wrote: post #4
skrowl wrote: post #3

What are some reasons you'd use this over free open source software alternatives like : https://insomnia.rest/ , https://install.advancedrestclient.com/install , or https://github.com/frigus02/RESTer ?

Auxl has a modular design, which can make chaining requests more intuitive. It’s also native, which still matters to many.

Also support for Websockets and chaining those w/ rest calls. (I know insomnia doesn't support this, dunno about others)

Re: Show HN: Auxl – Modular API Client for macOS

#33

Post by cultofmetatron »

grishka wrote: post #23
the_other wrote: post #5

The “pay for it once, own it forever” is appealing. However. I think recent engineering has shown this to be unsustainable. My initial thought was “they don’t plan to update this; no point buying in”.

What if it's feature-complete? People still use versions of photoshop that are 10 years old because those do everything they need.

code rots, Operating systems deprecate libraries that systems depend on. I personally wouldn't' mind paying on a subscription basses to ensure long term viability of a product.

I mean, the core value proposition here is quite good. I've been wanting something like this for awhile. but I'd feel a nervous staking my entire testing flow on a product which has no incentive for ongoing maintenance.

I'll definitely purchase it. I can easily justify it as a business expense and I hope the author of the software finds ways of plugging this product into a larger saas offering so he can continue paying his bills by maintaining this.

Re: Show HN: Auxl – Modular API Client for macOS

#35

Post by halostatue »

cultofmetatron wrote: post #25
robenkleene wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think of Paw ( https://paw.cloud/ ) which has some overlap with Auxl and charges more and has been in business for over seven years based on a similar value proposition (native app for one platform with free alternatives)?

paw doesn't support graphql as far as I know. THis product seems pretty useful. I'm building out a graphql api and end up haveing to maintain scripts to test out various workflows. this would be way simpler to drag and drop together a workflow for testing

Paw now supports GraphQL. I’ve been using Insomnia for a while, but need to get back to using my Paw licence because I prefer it so much more.

Re: Show HN: Auxl – Modular API Client for macOS

#39

Post by grantc »

danpalmer wrote: post #10
theFluke wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally often need the output from one service as input for another. With the new input often requiring a transformation. Auxl can function as a low friction environment to organise that without it getting cluttered. I also think a lot of API clients tend to obfuscate flows like, for example, an OAuth authentication. Making each step visible and having that extra granularity can help with customisation and debug…

Auxl looks good in that respect but maybe I wasn't clear enough in my question. What's the typical use-case of apps that let you make requests to APIs via a GUI? I've used them _briefly_ as part of a development process before, but never enough to justify buying one (I'd just spend a couple of minutes longer to write a Python script). Is that what most people are using them for? Am I missing a use-case?

Paw's great for figuring out someone else's poorly documented API. Sure I could code up the equivalent, but not going to waste cycles reinventing a tool that pays for itself in less than an hour of saved time
Post reply on HN