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

Atom Shell is now Electron

blog.atom.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: Atom Shell is now Electron

#71

Post by catshirt »

ars wrote: post #39
quanticle wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not any more difficult to Google than "Go", or "Python". I mean, we're talking about board games and snakes, right? :)

And those are in fact bad names. Just because they are used and popular doesn't make them good names. I forget which language it was, but someone interviewed the creator and he said if he had to do anything different he would not have named it something so hard to google.

is your standard for a bad name really "hard to google"?

Apple? C? when something gains critical mass it's really irrelevant anyway, since they become easy to google (atom shell is already a front page result for "electron").

or is the argument that they are bad names because they are not "relevant"? again.. Apple... C... if anything i'd say "electron" is super cliche and exactly the type of name i'd expect a library to have.

Re: Atom Shell is now Electron

#73

Post by sesteel »

gmac wrote: post #20
anon3_ wrote: post #13

The thing that turned me away from Atom and its' development is CoffeeScript. As someone who loves idiomatic JS, I still can't get why you'd pick a language that makes tooling and debugging a nightmare. It's also a kick in the gut to efforts to fix the shortcomings of ECMAScript like ES6 [1]. [1] https://github.com/lukehoban/es6features

Your comment fills me with equal parts irritation and curiosity, just because it's so far from my experience. I use CoffeeScript every day, and I experience not even the mildest of tooling or debugging hiccups. And I find CoffeeScript hits such a sweet spot — some of the best bits of Ruby and Python syntax, with the first class functions and raw speed of JavaScript. Mozilla's source maps implementation is pure JS, so…

I second this; though, to be fair, source maps in AtomShell have been flaky at times when selecting breakpoints with CoffeeScript. I have turned my source mapping off and debug the unminified resultant JavaScript.

Re: Atom Shell is now Electron

#74

Post by RobAley »

hobarrera wrote: post #67

Is it me, or does it sound a bit bloated: > It now includes automatic app updates, Windows installers, crash reporting, notifications, and other useful native app features * automatic app updates : We have distribution repositories for this. * windows installers: Doesn't window have it's own like app store now (market something?) * notifications: which we already had on all major OSs for years.

Obviously you don't have to use any of those features, they won't slow your app down just by being available (maybe a tiny overhead in distributed code size, but meh).

- auto updates : primarily useful for commercial software that isn't "eligible" for, or chooses not to pay to use, commercial app stores. Or other apps that for whatever reason don't meet the criteria for public repositories and don't want the hassle (for the publisher or consumer) of using a private repo.

- Windows installers : same reasoning as above.

- Notifications : I believe its a standardised cross-platform api onto the existing system-specific notification apis, not a new notification system.

Re: Atom Shell is now Electron

#75

Post by spinlock »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #66
spinlock wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want an index, use an index: for (1 = 65; i It's not like the syntax is that bad. But, iterators are simpler than indexing a collection. Iterators work with data structures like linked lists where you don't really have an index. And, they work when the collection changes while you're iterating it.

But you can't also output an array without additional lines of code.

You still haven't realized that _your_ solution won't output anything without additional lines of code, have you?

Re: Atom Shell is now Electron

#76

Post by [deleted] »

anon3_ wrote: post #69
mmgutz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, that same creator created Jade and Stylus which are pythonic like CoffeeScript. What's wrong with HTML and CSS? I could never take his stance against CoffeeScript seriously.

I can't speak for him. I've had fellow programmers love CoffeeScript for their own personal / client projects - but they conceded that for the real deal - a public open source project should stay in JS. Otherwise, it'd scare off swaths of top tier JS coders from contributing. Atom serves as an example of this practice [1]. The smell CoffeeScript in core gives off to them - while I don't subscribe to this - is that "i…

[deleted]

Re: Atom Shell is now Electron

#77

Post by ripter »

natrius wrote: post #36
ripter wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, have an up vote. I wish this community was nice to each other, instead of telling you why your personal choice is wrong and and trying to prove that they are right. It's not about being right or wrong, because there is no right or wrong. Just tools to do the job. Ignore the haters, they will always exist. Just keep build great stuff.

Your comment reads better as disagreeing with the comment you responded to.

> The thing that turned me away > As someone who loves

He is only stating his feelings. He's not trying to put anyone down or argue that his way is better. Unlike a lot of the comments.

Re: Atom Shell is now Electron

#78

Post by ars »

catshirt wrote: post #71
ars wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And those are in fact bad names. Just because they are used and popular doesn't make them good names. I forget which language it was, but someone interviewed the creator and he said if he had to do anything different he would not have named it something so hard to google.

is your standard for a bad name really "hard to google"? Apple? C? when something gains critical mass it's really irrelevant anyway, since they become easy to google (atom shell is already a front page result for "electron"). or is the argument that they are bad names because they are not "relevant"? again.. Apple... C... if anything i'd say "electron" is super cliche and exactly the type of name i'd expect a library…

> is your standard for a bad name really "hard to google"?

It's not the only one, but it's certainly important. Especially for more obscure projects, or things that users will have lots of question about, if you can't google it, it's not going to succeed.

> Apple? C?

Really? Those are you examples? Both of those were named before google even existed. They are very large, and hardly obscure. They don't need any help to be found.

> or is the argument that they are bad names because they are not "relevant"?

No, that's not the argument.

> if anything i'd say "electron" is super cliche and exactly the type of name i'd expect a library to have.

Maybe you expect it, but it's a terrible name.

Re: Atom Shell is now Electron

#79

Post by [deleted] »

ars wrote: post #78
catshirt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is your standard for a bad name really "hard to google"? Apple? C? when something gains critical mass it's really irrelevant anyway, since they become easy to google (atom shell is already a front page result for "electron"). or is the argument that they are bad names because they are not "relevant"? again.. Apple... C... if anything i'd say "electron" is super cliche and exactly the type of name i'd expect a library…

> is your standard for a bad name really "hard to google"? It's not the only one, but it's certainly important. Especially for more obscure projects, or things that users will have lots of question about, if you can't google it, it's not going to succeed. > Apple? C? Really? Those are you examples? Both of those were named before google even existed. They are very large, and hardly obscure. They don't need any help t…

[deleted]

Re: Atom Shell is now Electron

#80

Post by catshirt »

ars wrote: post #78
catshirt wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is your standard for a bad name really "hard to google"? Apple? C? when something gains critical mass it's really irrelevant anyway, since they become easy to google (atom shell is already a front page result for "electron"). or is the argument that they are bad names because they are not "relevant"? again.. Apple... C... if anything i'd say "electron" is super cliche and exactly the type of name i'd expect a library…

> is your standard for a bad name really "hard to google"? It's not the only one, but it's certainly important. Especially for more obscure projects, or things that users will have lots of question about, if you can't google it, it's not going to succeed. > Apple? C? Really? Those are you examples? Both of those were named before google even existed. They are very large, and hardly obscure. They don't need any help t…

to say a name is bad because it is hard to Google is dehumanizing. the purpose of a name is not to maximize discoverability. it is a side effect. do you feel the same about band names?

"bad name" is, i'm sure you understand, in every instance, completely subjective. and your stance stands under scrutiny particularly in software, where names like this are ubiquitous.

to defend my examples, which for some reason you considered an exhaustive list, i present rails... bootstrap... backbone... react... apache... steam... chrome... express... should i keep going? even Yale's Neuron simulator is named NEURON.

my point is that your opinion seems to be the minority. which is fine, just gives you no ground to call your opinion "fact".

Post reply on HN