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

Ruby website redesigned

ruby-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 224 posts

Re: Ruby website redesigned

#211

Post by lizmat »

trymas wrote: post #197
librasteve wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure that the designers had to juggle a massive amount of community input and feedback and I know that this is not easy. Kudos to them for (i) leading with some very apt code examples, (ii) the 4 "whys" and (iii) the multilingual support. Speaking from experience (recently we rebuilt https://raku.org ), I am sure that they will come back and optimize, but tbh this is not the priority with a new site where the hi…

> Speaking from experience (recently we rebuilt https://raku.org ), FYI, front-page has a lot of examples, that I assume change when switching tabs, e.g. "multi-paradigm" "strict-gradual" "interactive-mode", etc. But nothing happens, neither Safari 18.6, nor Chrome 143.0, on macOS 15.5.

FWIW, cannot reproduce on Safari 18.6 on MacOS 15.6.1

Re: Ruby website redesigned

#212

Post by elxr »

firefax wrote: post #46
Kwpolska wrote: post #20

So many Web designers put zero thought into how their page looks when it is not loaded or not scrolled exactly past the trigger. So many sites say "0 happy customers", because someone thought showing incrementing numbers is cool. On this page, it opens up with a "100%" loading indicator, for a site that appears to have no interactivity that would require JS, just to show a pointless animation.

I really like the 90s-esque aesthetic of sites like HN. Low bandwidth, minimal in an artistic way. I wish less sites would try to make them look like a wordpress from the early twenty aughts.

The early internet aesthetic is why, as much as I dislike the site's culture, I continue to use reddit + RES.

The UI, the minimal buttons, the tight paddings, the lack of pop-in, the complete lack of animations; these have all been essentially unchanged for the past decade. Even the dark mode colors look exactly as it did the first time I switched it on.

Re: Ruby website redesigned

#213

Post by troupo »

port11 wrote: post #205
troupo wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a page that appeared on HN front page news. So what do you expect? People ignoring the frankly idiotic choices made that you now defend with "they will come back and optimize it"? > HTPP/2 parallel requests aren't that big a deal, all things considered. I literally see a progress counter that is for some reason required to display the most trivial animation to show ... a single static link. On a gigabit conne…

Hmm, I don't see it. The animation loads instantly for me on a cold visit. The examples were already there. I tried it in Orion and things were a bit slower, Firefox too. But still not the multi-second delay, and I'm here on a ~30Mbps copper line with some latency. (Thanks syndicus!) That said, I've no reason to defend the page. It just didn't strike me as bad, but I can see how others are experiencing a bad page.

Here's mobile experience: https://youtube.com/shorts/LFIQeEL2S0U

The same is on desktop Firefox. For some reason youtube can't process the screencast for that :)

Re: Ruby website redesigned

#215

Post by throwawaypath »

tovej wrote: post #191
TimTheTinker wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So using a term as an ethnonym for historically British ethnic people is racist? If so, is it racist to assert or assume that ethnic Europeans exist?

What the hell are you on about. "Native brit" does not identify a people the way "native american" does. There is no entry in the dictionary for "native brit". This is all I'm talking about. Quit trolling.

"The English people are an ethnic group [...] native to England." [0]

"[White Brits] is an ethnicity classification used for the White population identifying as English..." [1]

The English are the native and indigenous ethnic group to England (London). White Brits are a category that includes the English.

QED.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_British

Re: Ruby website redesigned

#216

Post by throwawaypath »

tovej wrote: post #204
TimTheTinker wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP was trying to talk about ethnic brits, and I think that was clear from the context. He was then rebuked for that.

The OP was me. I pointed out how DHH's uses the term "native brit" to mean "white person" even though that is not the meaning of "native", which means you were born somewhere.

>I pointed out how DHH's uses the term "native brit" to mean "white person"

Nowhere in his post does he mention "White person." He specifically mentions "native Brits." The only indigenous Brits native to the Britain are White Brits.

Re: Ruby website redesigned

#217

Post by tovej »

throwawaypath wrote: post #216
tovej wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP was me. I pointed out how DHH's uses the term "native brit" to mean "white person" even though that is not the meaning of "native", which means you were born somewhere.

>I pointed out how DHH's uses the term "native brit" to mean "white person" Nowhere in his post does he mention "White person." He specifically mentions "native Brits." The only indigenous Brits native to the Britain are White Brits.

He links to a wikipedia article and cites a percentage for "native brits". That number on the wikipedia page is for white brits.

The only groups who could call themselves indigenous to Britain are the Celts, the Cornish, and the Bretons. The English (Anglo-Saxon) culture is foreign to the British isles.

Even then, none of this is related to skin tone. It's the culture that defines these potentially indigenous Celtic groups.

Re: Ruby website redesigned

#218

Post by tovej »

throwawaypath wrote: post #215
tovej wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the hell are you on about. "Native brit" does not identify a people the way "native american" does. There is no entry in the dictionary for "native brit". This is all I'm talking about. Quit trolling.

"The English people are an ethnic group [...] native to England." [0] "[White Brits] is an ethnicity classification used for the White population identifying as English..." [1] The English are the native and indigenous ethnic group to England (London). White Brits are a category that includes the English. QED. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_British

The English are not indigenous to Britain. The best case for an indigenous culture is the Celts, Cornish, and Welsh.

None of this has anything to do with being white, it's the language that defines belonging to these groups.

Re: Ruby website redesigned

#219

Post by throwawaypath »

tovej wrote: post #217
throwawaypath wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I pointed out how DHH's uses the term "native brit" to mean "white person" Nowhere in his post does he mention "White person." He specifically mentions "native Brits." The only indigenous Brits native to the Britain are White Brits.

He links to a wikipedia article and cites a percentage for "native brits". That number on the wikipedia page is for white brits. The only groups who could call themselves indigenous to Britain are the Celts, the Cornish, and the Bretons. The English (Anglo-Saxon) culture is foreign to the British isles. Even then, none of this is related to skin tone. It's the culture that defines these potentially indigenous Celtic…

>He links to a wikipedia article and cites a percentage for "native brits". That number on the wikipedia page is for white brits.

White Brits are the only indigenous, native Brits to Britain.

>The only groups who could call themselves indigenous to Britain are the Celts, the Cornish, and the Bretons. The English (Anglo-Saxon) culture is foreign to the British isles.

False. The English are the extant indigenous people to England, and descend from ancient populations: "The English largely descend from two main historical population groups: the West Germanic tribes, including the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who settled in eastern and southern Britain following the withdrawal of the Western Roman Empire, and the Romano-British Brittonic speakers who already lived there." [0]

QED.

>Even then, none of this is related to skin tone.

Glad you finally agree and admit to this.

>It's the culture that defines these potentially indigenous Celtic groups.

English culture is the current indigenous, native culture to England.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

Re: Ruby website redesigned

#220

Post by throwawaypath »

tovej wrote: post #218
throwawaypath wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The English people are an ethnic group [...] native to England." [0] "[White Brits] is an ethnicity classification used for the White population identifying as English..." [1] The English are the native and indigenous ethnic group to England (London). White Brits are a category that includes the English. QED. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_British

The English are not indigenous to Britain. The best case for an indigenous culture is the Celts, Cornish, and Welsh. None of this has anything to do with being white, it's the language that defines belonging to these groups.

>The English are not indigenous to Britain.

False. The English are the extant indigenous people to England, and descend from ancient populations: "The English largely descend from two main historical population groups: the West Germanic tribes, including the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who settled in eastern and southern Britain following the withdrawal of the Western Roman Empire, and the Romano-British Brittonic speakers who already lived there." [0]

QED.

>The best case for an indigenous culture is the Celts, Cornish, and Welsh.

Those are also "White Brits" who are indigenous to their respective areas.

>None of this has anything to do with being white

Glad you finally agree and admit to this.

>it's the language that defines belonging to these groups.

English language and culture is the current indigenous, native culture to England.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

Post reply on HN