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

JS1024 Results – 1k JavaScript Demos

js1024.fun

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 45 posts

Re: JS1024 Results – 1k JavaScript Demos

#11

Post by jakear »

nlh wrote: post #5

There’s something ironic about a site hosting intentionally tiny snippets of code that’s crashed / sluggish under the social media hug of death... BUT - the few that I’ve managed to see are super cool, so when it comes back to life it’s worth checking out!

Question for people that run websites that have been “hug of death”ed: would your website be able to be statically hosted on something like github pages, if no why not — if yes why do you choose not to, given it is free and would make all scaling troubles go away (or so I’ve heard).

Re: JS1024 Results – 1k JavaScript Demos

#12

Post by dna_polymerase »

jakear wrote: post #11
nlh wrote: post #5

There’s something ironic about a site hosting intentionally tiny snippets of code that’s crashed / sluggish under the social media hug of death... BUT - the few that I’ve managed to see are super cool, so when it comes back to life it’s worth checking out!

Question for people that run websites that have been “hug of death”ed: would your website be able to be statically hosted on something like github pages, if no why not — if yes why do you choose not to, given it is free and would make all scaling troubles go away (or so I’ve heard).

Sure most websites could easily served as static files on a server, but advocating for everything to be hosted on a single proprietary service is not a good idea.

But hosting an Apache or nginx to serve static files is easy enough and a single $5 or $10 instance on any hosting service out there could easily survive a HN frontpage.

Re: JS1024 Results – 1k JavaScript Demos

#13

Post by jakear »

dna_polymerase wrote: post #12
jakear wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question for people that run websites that have been “hug of death”ed: would your website be able to be statically hosted on something like github pages, if no why not — if yes why do you choose not to, given it is free and would make all scaling troubles go away (or so I’ve heard).

Sure most websites could easily served as static files on a server, but advocating for everything to be hosted on a single proprietary service is not a good idea. But hosting an Apache or nginx to serve static files is easy enough and a single $5 or $10 instance on any hosting service out there could easily survive a HN frontpage.

Not advocating for any service in particular (though disclaimer I do work at msft), I’m honestly wondering why someone would choose to ship a website as a server running on a hardware time slot rental with all the setup, cost, inscalability, and management that requires, as opposed to a free cdn that gives you a website with only some markdown.

Re: JS1024 Results – 1k JavaScript Demos

#14

Post by hombre_fatal »

jakear wrote: post #11
nlh wrote: post #5

There’s something ironic about a site hosting intentionally tiny snippets of code that’s crashed / sluggish under the social media hug of death... BUT - the few that I’ve managed to see are super cool, so when it comes back to life it’s worth checking out!

Question for people that run websites that have been “hug of death”ed: would your website be able to be statically hosted on something like github pages, if no why not — if yes why do you choose not to, given it is free and would make all scaling troubles go away (or so I’ve heard).

> if yes why do you choose not to

Because there's more work in caching your dynamic server/CMS to static files and often isn't trivial. And the dynamic-rendered CMS is enough 99% of the time. You act like it's just a button you press, and you're wondering why people don't just press it.

It's also not a money-making venture. So you have very poor ROI on making your charity site endure the rare hug of death. It goes down? Oh well. It'll come back up. It's also the reason you're using some cheap CPanel setup, not deploying to a $5 VPS.

Re: JS1024 Results – 1k JavaScript Demos

#15

Post by jakear »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #14
jakear wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question for people that run websites that have been “hug of death”ed: would your website be able to be statically hosted on something like github pages, if no why not — if yes why do you choose not to, given it is free and would make all scaling troubles go away (or so I’ve heard).

> if yes why do you choose not to Because there's more work in caching your dynamic server/CMS to static files and often isn't trivial. And the dynamic-rendered CMS is enough 99% of the time. You act like it's just a button you press, and you're wondering why people don't just press it. It's also not a money-making venture. So you have very poor ROI on making your charity site endure the rare hug of death. It goes do…

Sure I can understand not migrating existing dynamic websites to a static deployment model - don’t fix what isn’t broke. I suppose the question is more about greenfield projects, where in my experience writing a couple markdown files and pushing them to github and checking the “serve this” box is easier than managing a server.

> It's also not a money-making venture. So you have very poor ROI on making your charity site endure the rare hug of death. It goes down? Oh well. It'll come back up.

This is a very strange statement to me. My impression would be that if you’re running a charity site (or any site that makes money from being visited), you would want it to absolutely not go down during a hug of death, as that’s money out of your pocket at a time when it’s getting a ton of free publicity. Why make the site in the first place if you aren’t expecting it to provide value to either you or the viewer?

Re: JS1024 Results – 1k JavaScript Demos

#16

Post by hombre_fatal »

jakear wrote: post #15
hombre_fatal wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if yes why do you choose not to Because there's more work in caching your dynamic server/CMS to static files and often isn't trivial. And the dynamic-rendered CMS is enough 99% of the time. You act like it's just a button you press, and you're wondering why people don't just press it. It's also not a money-making venture. So you have very poor ROI on making your charity site endure the rare hug of death. It goes do…

Sure I can understand not migrating existing dynamic websites to a static deployment model - don’t fix what isn’t broke. I suppose the question is more about greenfield projects, where in my experience writing a couple markdown files and pushing them to github and checking the “serve this” box is easier than managing a server. > It's also not a money-making venture. So you have very poor ROI on making your charity si…

>where in my experience writing a couple markdown files and pushing them to github and checking the “serve this” box is easier than managing a server.

Making a site is more than "just some markdown files". Can you show me what you're talking about? Maybe I'm missing it. If you mean static-site generators (they aren't just a couple markdown files), they are very nerdy and have pretty bad UX for most people. I don't even use them. They are effectively developer-only, for one.

> This is a very strange statement to me.

Well, this is how things work. This goes back to the parable of the lumberjack who didn't have time to sharpen his axe, or the guy who didn't have time to write a shorter letter.

You just want to get something online that others can modify. Any additional second your pour into it is probably a waste of time. A niche website like JS1024 is down? Maybe nobody really cares. Maybe the only person willing to host this just does things this way. Oh well.

Edit: Your confusion here reminds me when I got my first dev job and was confused why the other developers never wanted to improve these obvious problems in the code. Or use new patterns. Or learn new things (16+yo VBScript app, the website was one 500k line switch statement running on IIS). "Doesn't anyone care?!" But as I got older, "I can't be fucked" or "cbf" made a lot more sense to me. Don't underestimate how often "cbf" answers your questions. ;)

Re: JS1024 Results – 1k JavaScript Demos

#17

Post by lifthrasiir »

jakear wrote: post #13
dna_polymerase wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure most websites could easily served as static files on a server, but advocating for everything to be hosted on a single proprietary service is not a good idea. But hosting an Apache or nginx to serve static files is easy enough and a single $5 or $10 instance on any hosting service out there could easily survive a HN frontpage.

Not advocating for any service in particular (though disclaimer I do work at msft), I’m honestly wondering why someone would choose to ship a website as a server running on a hardware time slot rental with all the setup, cost, inscalability, and management that requires, as opposed to a free cdn that gives you a website with only some markdown.

Mainly because it was not a mere markdown. You can't see right now, but it had submission forms with previews and rating forms. Yes, you can route dynamic parts to elsewhere, but it was not really static for a while.

Re: JS1024 Results – 1k JavaScript Demos

#18

Post by lifthrasiir »

Post-mortem writeups by submitters:

Frank Force: https://frankforce.com/?p=7617 (1st place)

Raimon Ràfols: http://blog.rafols.org/index.php/2020/07/21/javascript-ballo... (10th place)

Mattia Fortunati: https://www.mattiafortunati.com/detective-moji-postmortem-a-... (16th place)

Re: JS1024 Results – 1k JavaScript Demos

#19

Post by detritus »

jakear wrote: post #11
nlh wrote: post #5

There’s something ironic about a site hosting intentionally tiny snippets of code that’s crashed / sluggish under the social media hug of death... BUT - the few that I’ve managed to see are super cool, so when it comes back to life it’s worth checking out!

Question for people that run websites that have been “hug of death”ed: would your website be able to be statically hosted on something like github pages, if no why not — if yes why do you choose not to, given it is free and would make all scaling troubles go away (or so I’ve heard).

You're assuming everyone expects to get Hug'o'Deathed. I suppose a site like the one here should expect a higher bandwidth around competition and announcement time, but for independent people who happen to get picked up on HN/Reddit/etc?

Re: JS1024 Results – 1k JavaScript Demos

#20

Post by SimeVidas »

nlh wrote: post #5

There’s something ironic about a site hosting intentionally tiny snippets of code that’s crashed / sluggish under the social media hug of death... BUT - the few that I’ve managed to see are super cool, so when it comes back to life it’s worth checking out!

The website is loading megabytes of images from its own domain without a CDN. R.I.P. web server.
Post reply on HN