Specific ways to write better Python (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/SigmaQuan/Better-Python-59-Ways <comment><USER3> The author has a second edition out with 90 examples at [https://effectivepython.com/](https://effectivepython.com/), and the corresponding github repo at [https://github.com/bslatkin/effectivepython](https://github.com/bslatkin/effectivepython)

Its been updated to be exclusive to 3.x, including 3.8 samples.

<comment><USER4> The author also has a really nice Safari training video course[1]. Always worth reminding folks that Safari is included on a $99/yr ACM subscription, which is a great value.

[1] [https://learning.oreilly.com/videos/effective- python/9780134...](https://learning.oreilly.com/videos/effective- python/9780134175249)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> On "return generators instead of lists" I think it's also important when you do this to return use a context manager to manage the generators lifetime. Otherwise you might be surprised when the underlying file or source is closed later in your code.

I blogged about this: [https://opensourceconnections.com/blog/2020/06/10/python- gen...](https://opensourceconnections.com/blog/2020/06/10/python-generators- and-context-managers/)

<comment><USER6> Maybe I misunderstood, but if you're suggesting the generator function open/close the resource, then I disagree. The caller has the responsibility of safely opening and closing. The generator function should not care what type of iterable it receives

<comment><USER5> Then the caller must know they are receiving a generator dependent on the files lifetime. Pretty brittle IMO. Receiving a list wouldn't depend on the files lifetime. This causes client code to be pretty error prone as you can very easily think you're saving off a list built from a file, but in reality you hold a generator. Client code closes the file, the generator is used much later, and blammo, crash! NOT doing a context manager forces clients to work harder at guessing lifetimes.

So you can't just replace lists with generators.

This break the uniform access principal. Client code IMO shouldn't need to think about whether they got a generator or an interable container.

<comment><USER6> > Then the caller must know they are receiving a generator dependent on the > files lifetime

How would they not? The caller provides the file as an argument to the generator function. Further, the caller decides when to close the file, presumably via leaving a context and after the generator is consumed.

<comment><USER7> it's not too hard to write code like:

      with open(...) as f:
        lines = process(f)

      # do stuff with lines

^ if `process` returns a generator, the file will be closed without having done anything.

<comment><USER6> Put `do stuff with lines` inside the context. Where it belongs.

<comment><USER7> and hold open a resource longer than necessary? or when looping over lines multiple times? it doesn't unambiguously belong in there. often, yes, but not always.

<comment><USER8> As the caller you can always choose to write lines=list(process(f)) if your use case requires it. If process(f) returned a list though, you wouldn't be able to avoid the potentially large memory allocation if you only needed to iterate over the results.

<comment><USER7> Sure. It's entirely possible.

Do you `list(...)` _literally everywhere_ you want a list, whether or not it's currently a list? Extreme-defensive-programming like that tends to be extremely rare in my experience. Not nonexistent, but I'd be willing to bet that if you took a random stack overflow or github line of code, it wouldn't do this.

<comment><USER8> Defensive programming wasn't meant to be the takeaway.

Rather, if you need a list and the otherwise perfect library method `foo` returns an iterator then you as the caller have almost no downside in writing `list(foo())` instead.

On the flip-side, if you need an iterator (e.g. because of memory concerns) and the otherwise perfect library method `foo` returns a list then you as the caller have no options other than re-implementing `foo` or finding another tool to solve your problem.

If your project usually requires lists rather than iterators then the syntactic burden of wrapping everything in `list(...)` could be annoying, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that performance-critical code couldn't tolerate the iterator overhead (though I'd posit that most of the time just using a list instead probably wouldn't fix it), but using iterators rather than lists seems like a good default if you don't have a good reason not to.

<comment><USER7> Isn't that just the opposite tradeoff for code you call though?

E.g. lists are strictly more flexible than iterators since they are multi-pass and can index. If you take a return from lib func A and pass it to lib funcs B and C (possibly in a different lib), if A returns an iterator then you need to know what B and C are going to do with it. If A returns a list, you do not - <USER2> and C cannot affect each other in this way unless they directly mutate the argument, which is _relatively_ rare and usually has very strong documentation and/or naming patterns to make it not surprising. And B and C and all their calls can change without you needing to change your code between them and A.

You can of course `list(A())` before passing it to B and C, but that's arguably defensive programming unless you know A returns an iterator.

tbh I'd say I see multi-iteration and indexing several times more often than I see iterator-only use in most code, and almost never see memory issues except in large or embedded systems. Gigabytes of RAM are standard now, and dumping a few thousand files into memory before processing will quite often out-perform a more memory-efficient streaming approach. In the rare cases where you _do_ exceed those memory bounds, you're likely in a niche area (gigabytes of files, tiny memory space, significant computation cost) and are likely using niche- oriented libraries that benefit more from coordinating tightly than from being perfectly general.

<comment><USER6> > never see memory issues

In contrast, I see them all the time (damn you, Pandas). Beyond out-of-memory errors, generators can be vastly more compute-efficient because of the CPU cache.

<comment><USER7> Pandas I'd definitely categorize as being niche :) A moderately-sized one, but still a niche. And there you use whatever performs the way you need it, yeah - there are special constraints on the system, and pandas is built around dealing with them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great suggestions for general-purpose code, but I would NOT recommend following them in 'mathematically dense' code (e.g., deep learning models), for which being able to fit as much logic as possible into a single editing screen becomes increasingly important as we increase the complexity of the code.

Taken to the extreme, the "fit as much logic as possible into a single screen" approach leads naturally to code that looks a lot like something written in APL or one its descendants (J, K, etc.). I recognize this is not for everyone.

Personally, I think Jeremy Howard and the folks at fast.ai have struck a pretty good balance of readability and succinctness with their coding style for ML/AI code:

[https://docs.fast.ai/dev/style.html](https://docs.fast.ai/dev/style.html)

<comment><USER10> I work in deep learning, and I'm very dubious of the benefit of terse code. In my experience 90% of novel deep learning models can be coded with base layer classes from tf/pytorch/keras + maybe a few hundred lines of 'new' code. For this code I feel like you will avoid mistakes and make things so much easier for the reader (probably yourself in 6 months), if you modularise, write it as clearly as possible and explain what each part is doing.

I have used code from the fast.ai codebase and personally I find it horrendous to work with - I find the way they structure and name classes consfusing, they use wildcard imports everywhere, they use tiny variable names for everything - it's all extremely reader-unfriendly, which for an educational tool seems completely bizarre.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Assigning to a list slice will replace that range in the original sequence > with what's referenced even if their lengths are different.

Not only that, but you can assign to a slice with a stride:

        In [1]: r = list(range(10))

        In [2]: r
        Out[2]: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

        In [3]: r[1::3] = 10, 20, 30

        In [4]: r
        Out[4]: [0, 10, 2, 3, 20, 5, 6, 30, 8, 9]

</comment><comment><USER12> Items 7 and 8 seem to be at odds with each other to me, don't use reduce and map because it's ugly and unreadable, but if you use the alternative for reduce and map then you can't make a deeper pipe because it becomes too complicated to read? Get real!

Is it even true that comprehensions are faster than reduce and map? I write a lot of python with reduce and map, and I know it's not considered a best practice for perf reasons, but whenever I go-ahead and rewrite it in the "more pythonic" way, I can't help but think that it ends up a lot less readable. I feel like this divide makes functional programming in python more of a hassle than it should be.

<comment><USER13> I think #7 would be clearer if it said "Use list comprehensions instead of map or filter where the latter would use lambda expressions, and in place of the combination of map and filter". Map and filter where you are applying a function (including a function-returning expression) that doesn't require a lambda are, IMO, cleaner and avoiding an extra lambda or map/filter combo is explictly the basis of #7 (see #7.i., 7.ii.) I don't think this is bad writing, the author expects you to read the subpoints, but if you were to present the major points independently...

#8 is a little unclear as to which expressions it is counting (particularly, whether it counts the return expression, which I don't think it intends to.) I think it's referring to the two total "for" and "if" clauses, so either two "for" or one of each as the preferred limit, which seems to me to be a sensible guideline.

It think both #7 and #8, even with the additional clarification, need so to be considered in combination with #4: they set the rules as to what constitutes a complicated expression—either with comprehensions or map/filter/etc.—that calls for factoring part of it out into a helper function or named subexpression to avoid overly complex, code-golfy one-liners.

> Is it even true that comprehensions are faster than reduce and map?

While I'd love to see "accumulator comprehension" syntax* added to Python, in real current python comprehensions aren't generally an alternative to reduce.

* something like:

      (compute x from 0 as x+n for n in ns)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I couldn't help but notice that the latest commit on the repo was over 3 years ago</comment>


Ask HN: What Software Development Methodology do you use in pet projects? - <AUTHOR>

Dear HN,<p>How do you manage you pet projects? Do you use some methodology even though you're working on your own? <comment><USER2> Pet projects are the one refuge I have from "methodologies," my one little corner of the world where I don't have to proactively leverage my synergies and deliver turn-key, best-of-breed cross-platform whiteboard convergence and scalable, clicks-and-mortar enterprise-strength XML deliverables for B2B/B2C WSDL BPEL SOAP that get someone their five-9s ROI.

No methodologies.

</comment><comment><USER3> I use TDD, but rather than all-out unit tests I just write doctests. Here's an example of a project created that way: [http://github.com/paulgb/tilelife/blob/7e797ac287a91d48276a2...](http://github.com/paulgb/tilelife/blob/7e797ac287a91d48276a2a8d63811194f8fbac95/tilelife.py)

</comment><comment><USER4> I use CABTAB (code a bit, test a bit). I've tried TDD to learn it, but I find I end up bogged down in tests and end up losing all interest in the project I was originally working on.

</comment><comment><USER5> I try to be agile even when working alone. It certainly makes pairing interesting! I use PivotalTracker to manage things.

<comment><USER6> I also try to be somewhat agile maintaining a backlog, tracking bugs and setting goals for my sprints, although my daily stand up meetings are a little...awkward.</comment></comment>


Austin Startup Sees a Big Future for Little Homes - <AUTHOR> http://austininno.streetwise.co/2016/01/15/micro-living-austin-kasita-homes-offer-affordable-urban-housing-option/ <comment><USER2> Some math:

A 208 sq-ft. mini-studio for $600/mo (+ the up-front purchase cost, whatever that is). That's $2.88/sq-ft.

By way of example, I found a 538 sq-ft. studio in downtown Austin for $1,387/mo. That's $2.58/sq-ft.

So, by area, the Kasita is more expensive. (This should not be surprising.) The argument then becomes one of absolute dollars: the difference between a 538 sq-ft. studio and a 208 sq-ft. Kasita being fairly moot, so hey, save $600+/mo.

And I laud this: I think there's a great market for micro-housing. (See also: all the "Tiny House" shows on HGTV.) I don't understand why I need to buy a "pod" and then convince developers to put a "rack" on their lots. Just build smaller apartments: the math should work out.

<comment><USER3> If you can swing the $53/month mortgage, you might like to take a look at:

[http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/11451-Lansdowne-St- Detroit...](http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/11451-Lansdowne-St-Detroit- MI-48224/98031530_zpid/)

...looks like a nice neighborhood, and the inside seems we'll maintained. So that's $0.04/sq-ft/month.

<comment><USER4> I've thought about the idea of establishing a micro community in Detroit. Buy up cheap adjacent houses and lots and get entrepreneurs interested in a combination of tech business(to draw outside money) and local service businesses(restaurants, stores, etc to service the community members and attract more people) to move in. The biggest investment would be establishing good security, utilities and internet.

<comment><USER5> I'm interested in this, maybe as an investor too. I like the idea of ways to enhance the 'buy and hold cheap houses' investment concept. I also have one or two ideas on how to do that. Send me a message if you go ahead with it. My email is in my profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm pretty sure there is a market, but it feels so much like: "Here slave, have this small cabin." "Let's make this the new normal for the workers so they can do with even less wages as we increase profits." "Hey, what are you whining about? It looks like an iPhone inside out, doesn't it, it's design, isn't it?" "It has a microwave, hasn't it? You can live on mac and cheese. You know what, we'll place them on campus, you'll be home in a sec!"

<comment><USER7> Perhaps the assumptions that cause people to aspire to a McMansion are the ones that "enslave". "Here, have a bigger container, so you can collect more things."

<comment><USER8> There's a television commercial[0] currently airing for Quicken Loan's "Rocket Mortgage" product that is literally saying this and it bugs me every time I see it.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlRm6Y5iVfw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlRm6Y5iVfw)

<comment><USER9> Yeah I get scared when I see that one. They are literally tone deaf.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's important to note that this is not a one-time $600 apparently. It's more like, find a developer who has created a rack, and pay to rent a space in that rack and plug in your home and continuing paying for space in that rack. I guess moving is a lot easier - just find a rack in another location.

"The idea is to have developers purchase racks and individuals purchase Kasitas that fit into them. The developers would make money with homeowner association fees. And homeowners would own their Kasita, paying about $600 a month -- or about half of an equivalent studio in central Austin." [from linked source]

But I'm still even confused by this wording and the $600 tag - is it just cheaper rent in another form and a different ownership model?

<comment><USER11> This business model exists, and has existed for a long time.

The big problems that I'm aware of with it are that moving your unit can be a headache - think "transportable" not "portable," that units tend to depreciate (vs appreciation for permanent structures), and the ever-present concern about tornadoes in much of the country.

And yes, it's called a trailer park. As I understand it, you generally purchase and own your own mobile home, but you're leasing a pad from the park owner along with the costs for utility hookups.

<comment><USER12> Since trailer parks tend to be the choice of low-income /lowe-wealth residents, in practice the mobile homes tend to be owned by the parks and rented.

<comment><USER11> That's pretty variable - the person I knew who lived in a mobile home had one that he'd inherited from his mother. I think the lot rent was not too far from what I'd previously been paying for a pretty nice apartment which really kind of sucks since all he was getting for that was a cement slab with some utility hookups.

The other problem he had was that because he owned the mobile home, to get out of the whole situation he had to either find someone to buy it (and take over the space or move it) or he had to get it out of the space himself. The residual value of a 20+ year old mobile home is really pretty low if it hasn't been kept up well, but I think he eventually sold it off to someone for a small amount of money just to avoid having to fix it up enough to be moved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As has been stated in other comments, it's not that we don't have enough homes or that we don't have affordable homes.

Perhaps the "free-market" is not the optimal distribution system for housing. Said another way, perhaps the manner in which we meet our most basic needs of shelter, security, and stability should not be left to the free market.

A corollary then might be, perhaps if social and political frameworks had priority over (but not to the exclusion of) economic frameworks runaway real- estate prices might not so inevitably lead to the unnecessary but unyielding march of the unwilding of our environment (when there are massive tracts of dilapidated real-estate crying out for redevelopment), gentrification of communities and the concomitant loss the cultures of those pushed out into either the diaspora or relocated into projects, and the hand-to-mouth existence that many of us experience, even full-time and well paid persons.

$600 houses are a red-herring to the real issues, not a solution to anything.

<comment><USER14> Another option is to actually make it a free market by reintroducing homesteading. Undeveloped or unused land, after a period of abandonment, would effectively become open game for anyone to start developing and the previous owner would forfeit it.

Using real estate as a store of wealth, like gold, is incredibly toxic for society, because it basically takes money (and in the case of real estate, land) out of the economy to mitigate fiscal risk.

<comment><USER15> That's pretty much a non-starter. There's plenty of cheap, undeveloped land in the middle of the country for sale but there are few buyers. Out here where I live, it's not unusual for even very nice homes to be for sale for _years_ before an offer comes in.

In the middle of a city? If you have someone sitting on land waiting for the price to go up and you threaten them with "not using it," then odds are they'll put a cheap building on it and sell storage space or something. What would that accomplish?

<comment><USER16> > In the middle of a city? If you have someone sitting on land waiting for the > price to go up and you threaten them with "not using it," then odds are > they'll put a cheap building on it and sell storage space or something. What > would that accomplish?

I saw this in action. I wanted to buy an old firehouse for conversion to owner-occupied loft and workspace. Current owner had purchased it in the early 1980's for a few tens of thousands of dollars from the city and the neighborhood had declined-- only half-joking it was the corner of Crack and Stab just down from Needlestick Park. The owner had moved cross-country and left the property and it's value had declined but it was adjacent to a gentrifying neighborhood and a short walk to a city bus stop. When I tracked them down they never responded to calls or letters, the local attorney they had last used had no contact with them, and they had stopped paying taxes. The city finally declared that they would seize and auction it off not because of the back taxes but because the sidewalk was not being cleared of snow and the exterior was unmaintained. Suddenly the absentee owner paid up half his delinquent taxes and let a local guy who repairs cars park vehicles in the bays, etc. Great improvement, now there are beat up cars and junk and the roof has started to collapse but because the sidewalk is clear, it's good.

<comment><USER13> that's actually really interesting. that's local government at work for you, in the most real and annoying sense. people getting involved and trying to change things at the local level only to be stymied by some a-hole preventing a good change by satisfying the letter but not spirit of the law. gotta love local politics/government. such a beautiful mess.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is where I'd like to see more innovation. The kind of stuff that takes most of the time and money for most people. Housing, cleaning, food storage, plumbing, transport, security. How come cars, homes, wholesome dinners, home repair, car repair costs more or about the same as 20-30 years ago. We have more and more materials to work with, efficiencies of industrial processes and machines has improved and more stuff is automated. How come the little guy/gal is not getting any of it other than the internet?

In many part of, say the Rust Belt, or many innner cities there are tons of abandoned buildings and houses. If only the repairs and maintenance costs decreased, a lot of people could use them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Completely agree baltcode, as amazing as teslas and iphones are homes are the center point for everything else. There is a huge housing crisis and it effects much more of the economy, environment and community than most people realize and I can't help but feel like there is much more innovation to be had on this front!

<comment><USER18> The problem you run into is that housing (the land, really) is both a useful object and a rather solid investment. It's that dual functionality that makes it a different problem from disposable objects (iPhones and cars, as examples). Very few cars or phones are purchased as investments directly (meaning you see the value appreciate). Housing is almost exclusively an investment, both for finances (whether collecting rent or being able to leverage the value down the road) and for the land it sits on.

A world where most housing becomes disposable (i.e. it is not directly tied to the land it sits on) would be very different from the one we currently live in.

<comment><USER19> "A world where most housing becomes disposable (i.e. it is not directly tied to the land it sits on) would be very different from the one we currently live in."

So basically the trailer park model?

<comment><USER18> That's what I envision, but I like to be optimistic that it wouldn't be _that_ bad.

<comment><USER19> One variation is the campground model. I have a camper parked at a fairly decent campground, costs are about 2.5K a year (plus electricity and waste disposal). But where I live the camping season is about 5 months. However, it doesn't have the feel of a trailer park -- instead if feels like a resort area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Don't really understand the US rent prices. I mean, I can understand SF or Manhattan being expensive.

But the US has huge empty countryside, vastly expansive residential areas, AND, for the most part, houses that to European sensibilities seem like made for dolls (thin wood panels for walls, cheap construction, no concrete or real bricks to be seen, etc). And parts are much cheaper than in Europe.

Both of these factors should keep prices very very low. $600 per month micro homes? You can get $600 per month regular, spacious home, in a city like Berlin -- and much lower in other places.

<comment><USER21> Distance.

Urbanites & Europeans don't seem to grasp how _far_ it is between the affordable/cheap housing and the "tech centers" in downtown wherever (or how vast the USA is in general). I've got a reasonably good housing price in the 'burbs, but that means a 40+ minute drive in (leaving _before_ 6:00AM, every minute thereafter = a minute longer drive), and 90+ minute drive back (leaving at 4:00PM prompt, again gets worse the later I leave). Sure, there's lots of cheap land not far out, but a major media company isn't going to relocate there, and us contractors aren't going to relocate just to be close to it.

We also average bigger homes, roughly twice the size as in Europe.

<comment><USER20> > _Urbanites & Europeans don't seem to grasp how far it is between the > affordable/cheap housing and the "tech centers" in downtown wherever (or how > vast the USA is in general)._

Well, I'm probably an exception, as I've travelled all across the US (several coast to coast road trips and such, from Highway 1 to Route 66 and loads more).

But I don't see a 10, 20 or 30 mile commute as a problem. He have those in Europe too, and in much worse highways or congestion in some cases (e.g. inside the city one can spend 30 minutes to get across 5 miles).

> _We also average bigger homes, roughly twice the size as in Europe._

True, but also a lot of trailers and projects, which one doesn't see much, if at all, in Europe. The closest will be some small, confined, old buildings in Eastern Europe. (And I think our "projects" equivalent are much better).

<comment><USER22> That's because you have no room for cheap housing to exist on, and cheap/low quality houses are usually built where the land is cheap. Simply put, land is at such a high demand or premium there, and its rare to see a situation where you'd spend so much for the land and not bother to put at least home of equivalent value. You don't have much land to waste on a trailer or projects. Here you can get a parcel of land for a couple of thousand, so someone will put a cheap home (trailer) on it and it makes sense, but you won't often see a trailer on land that costs as much or more than the trailer. So the economics of it just work out there that anyone who would live in a trailer in Europe couldn't even afford the land if they couldn't afford a house. There if you can't afford to build or buy a house, you certainly could not afford the land to put it on.

On the commute you're assuming that because driving 30 miles down the highway is easy you don't also have to cross through the city once you get there to get to the office. Take that 30 mile commute, say that takes 20-25 minutes to get 25 miles of it down the highway to the city, now you're in the city, so now you add the 30 minutes it takes to get through those last 5 miles now that you're in the city dealing with the same traffic as a city resident. Now you have the reason why the commute is worse. You still have the same commute through the city, unless the office and is on the edge of the city and you live on that end as opposed to the opposite side so you don't have to go through or around.

<comment><USER20> What would be the reason for a tech company to have its offices in the city center though?

<comment><USER23> If the city is ringed by suburbs, being in the city center gives you access to potential employees from all the suburbs, not just the nearest ones. As well as employees who would prefer to take transit to work rather than drive (a growing demographic). Plus if you're trying to attract younger employees, they'd generally prefer to work somewhere that's convenient to the same places that are convenient to their friends' offices and close to bustling after- hours businesses. They want to meet friends after work, and would rather travel 15 min within the city rather than 40 min back to the city or in a ring around the city in order to do that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Meanwhile I live in Downtown Albuquerque for $770 a month plus < $100 a month for utilities. Maybe not as developed as downtown San Francisco (far from it actually), but there's still more breweries, music venues, coffee shops, and restaurants than I know what to do with.

I can't take this solution seriously as long as I pay almost the same price for a loft apartment with exposed brick walls, bamboo flooring, a washer and dryer, and a number of other nice things that I'm too lazy to list. I especially can't take it seriously knowing that there are communities practically begging for people to reverse the trend of the rural exodus.

Granted, the tech community isn't as strong here, but you'll still probably figure out a way to make things work if you've got out-of-state connections and don't mind dealing with our slightly confusing tax policy.

</comment><comment><USER25> The problem isn't that there aren't enough homes, or that we don't know how to build cheap homes.

It's simply that desirable land is so incredibly expensive.

Unless these homes can be stacked to the sky in an affordable way, I have my doubts that this will change anything.

</comment><comment><USER26> Of course, one of the issues with small homes in the US is that you're usually legally forced to add parking, which might take even more space than these homes. What good is a 300 square foot home when you're legally forced to build 400 square feet of parking for it?

In San Diego it's illegal to build a house unless it comes with 2 parking spaces. An apartment requires 1.25 spaces. This is ridiculous, of course, and part of why most US cities that were built after the 40's are dreadful.

</comment><comment><USER27> This is hilariously naive for both the buyer and seller.

Who wants to live in a space the size of your college dorm room past your freshman year?

Also, all it takes is one bad neighbor and your life is hell since you have no space buffer. If not a booming stereo at all hours, then something as simple as slamming doors to wake you up at all hours.

Young men, maybe, could deal with this for a short while. The turnover otherwise would be very high.

</comment><comment><USER28> I have lived, at various times, in a motorhome (240 square feet with the slide out), a travel trailer (190 square feet, and my current home), an apartment (600 square feet), a full sized house, a small house (800 square feet), and a big house with roommates.

I am thoroughly sold on tiny houses. I don't need a McMansion to be happy. Don't want one, in fact.

But, I don't like these and don't find them attractive, at all. They have the negatives of an apartment and none of the benefits of a tiny house, as I see them. The "rack" concept is antithetical to the independence I want from a tiny house...if I hate my landlord (as history indicates I will), or otherwise want to move, I have to relocate my whole house to another compatible rack. That virtually guarantees I can't move to where I want to move (because there's no way this is going to be hugely popular). So, I'm stuck selling the thing. Might as well buy an apartment (also a thing I would never do).

I think they're trying to solve several problems at once, and ending up with a suboptimal solution for all of them. One problem is high rents in downtown Austin (which truly has gotten out of hand, and will only get worse as long as Austin remains the fastest growing city in the US), another problem is home ownership which is out of reach for more people than ever (for a variety of reasons, and it is most pronounced in growing cities), and finally I think the tiny house thing is a backlash against the suburban dream of huge houses. The thing is, though, that this won't be affordable...the small number of available locations to "park" your tiny house will guarantee the landlord is in a position of strength when negotiating rent so this will be more expensive than other tiny homes in general. The issue of wanting to own your own home isn't solved when you don't own the land it sits on, as you're still a renter with the added stress of what to do with the damned thing when you move.

Anyway, I like that tiny houses are becoming more "normal". I don't like that the model for how it's being implemented looks a lot like renting.

</comment><comment><USER29> For what it's worth: here in the midwest, that's almost what I pay on the mortgage for a 3 bedroom, 2500 sq ft house.

</comment><comment><USER30> basically, it is "rack-etized" mobile park. From my understanding, due local MUDs being over capacity and pretty expensive per-pad costs to bring sewer, electric, water (i assume they are not going to deal with gas.) mobile parks are no longer "easy" investments.

I.e. from tech-standpoint it might be feasible.

From consumer standpoint - price they are offering - not sure, we need to see price of the "kasitas". Unless something drastically changed during last few year, it should be possible to find decent "traditional" apartment for +- same amount. And if you account for price of "kasita" \- it might actually become on par of fancier appartments.

But most risk is in infrastructure for that project - it might get prohibitively expensive. and $1m does not sound like a lot to make that happen, unless they plan investors building "racks" AND pay for bringing up utilities AND dealing with state/MUD.

</comment><comment><USER31> If you consider the 5% of the poorest people, and consider the environmental cost of concrete, and how dense urban areas are stressful and that there needs to be more space between homes, then this totally makes sense.

What I'm more worried about is insulation, humidity, and other stuff like mold and durability. Also those types of house are not really viable if you can't sit down just outside next to it if there is too much noise or pollution.

So to be honest, it seems to be more a problem of urban planning than anything else, which can be political. A tiny house is interesting if other parameters makes it interesting.

</comment><comment><USER32> Move to Atlanta. Midtown apartment, 1,100 square feet, $980 per month. No tiny house or pad or lot or anything needed. Heck you could buy a 3,200 sq ft house 15mi from city center with a mortgage that's only $1,200 a month; like me.

</comment><comment><USER33> If Oakland city leaders were more proactive, they might use their 90 day rent hike / eviction moratorium[1] to recruit modular builders and create zoning exceptions for this type of housing. $600/month would be a lifesaver as median rent in Oakland hits $2950 for a two-bedroom. (It would also probably be a cheaper way for SF to house the homeless than acquiring or building new SROs.)

[1] [http://sf.curbed.com/2016/4/5/11365144/oakland-rent- eviction...](http://sf.curbed.com/2016/4/5/11365144/oakland-rent-eviction- moratorium-city-council)

<comment><USER34> The rent isn't engineered into the building.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Not really new. I've seen many companies creating similar homes - it's been popular for a few years at least. The more interesting ones (in my opinion) are the ones optimized to be highly efficient for living off-the-grid and self-sustainably.

It's scary at the same time. Humans are getting smaller and smaller and more irrelevant and powerless and less individual. In the future we'll probably all live in little pods under some kind of gigantic government that controls our lives. Maybe we'll be happy, but we'll be shadows of the diverse and complex beings we once were.

<comment><USER36>
        Maybe we'll be happy, but we'll be shadows of the
        diverse and complex beings we once were

These "diverse and complex beings" you refer to. When did we fit the model you're thinking of, exactly?

<comment><USER35> At all times up until present - constantly fluctuating, but generally trending upwards with the ascent of the evolution of life and of human beings. And perhaps it will continue for a long time yet. However, the majority of humans long to end it or at least to set it back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Please be safe to live in... then please, please, please build these in Boston.

<comment><USER38> They've been building micro units in Boston for a while now, but the results are less than impressive: [http://realestate.boston.com/news/2014/11/26/micro- units-pop...](http://realestate.boston.com/news/2014/11/26/micro-units-pop-up- in-boston-fetch-high-prices/)

$2,000/mo for 420sqft

<comment><USER39> Although I don't have the figures, I suspect that by the time you factor in all the infrastructure for a unit (elevators, common areas, hallways, parking (?), etc.) you don't really cut out all that much cost by reducing units by a few hundred square feet.

Seaport rents are particularly extreme for reasons that I confess I don't fully understand but you definitely get into diminishing returns as you decrease apartment size.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Comparing Kasita with the cheapest rents just means it isn't for those markets.The question is whether there are enough high cost markets where Kasita rack density and potential speed of installation for Kasita is financially compelling to the developer and Kasita owner to make sense.

In very general terms, in the US, Kasita will be a tough sell. In most places land is cheap enough that something like the Rural Studio $20k home designs, which are around 550 sq ft, are going to prove significantly more cost- effective.

</comment><comment><USER41> Maybe it was personal frustration when dealing with proprietary Sony connectors in audio-visual world, but I certainly wouldn't be interested in doing such a lock-in with my living arrangement. Nothing personal. Oh, in this economy though, and not in Austin, there are people renting ~$300/month rehearsal spaces and living in those around here. No showers or kitchen, but for those who want to be different in their own way, well, they find them. I personally dislike that work-around though.

</comment><comment><USER42> "Wilson said people need to see it to believe." \- I wonder how much he is doing that. If he could get some show like Big Brother to have to use the Kasitas for a season, that might break down the resistance of people, making it normal or even fashionable to live in it.

AirBnB has a lot of research and data on housing, the market needs and prices all over the world. Finding common grounds with AirBnB (and having them invest) might give them the strategic partnership needed to find their product-market fit.

</comment><comment><USER43> It's amazing how the hipster and tech-douche crowd loves solving problems they are the cause of. It's so wonderfully reflexive and blusteringly ignorant.

</comment><comment><USER44> Comparing to a flat in my city Paris, France... Many people (student, young professional) lives in small flats like that. I lived in a flat like that. The price of a 25sq-meters flat (= 270sq-ft, the Kasita) is around 200 000 US$ . To rent one, it's around 850 US$/month I lived in London too. It's even more expensive.

</comment><comment><USER45> You need a Big Pickup to move one ( you won't be moving it all the time ) but a fifth wheel is easily available now and has more square feet than those little cubelets. I came really close to making a business of nothing more than hauling used fifth wheels up to North Dakota during the oil boom.

</comment><comment><USER46> So this guy invented the hipster trailer court? Because the stereotype of a trailer court and its residents is something _everyone_ wants in their neighborhood!

(And, personally, I'd have no problem living in a mobile home in a trailer court, were it not for the people I'd likely live next to.)

</comment><comment><USER47> You can go even tinier:

[http://www.amazon.com/Shafers-Book-Backyard-Sheds- Houses/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Shafers-Book-Backyard-Sheds- Houses/dp/1565238168)

100 to 120 square feet. And they are (or can be made) transportable.

</comment><comment><USER48> "Kasitas" is slang for "Casita", which means "little home" in Spanish

</comment><comment><USER49> Why is this in Austin? Ten miles from downtown Austin is farmland.

</comment><comment><USER50> Une maison est une machine-à-habiter.

<comment><USER51> Le Corbusier! I guessed right. Now I have to admit I don't really know what he meant by this.

<comment><USER50> Pick any modern automobile, and you can drive to your destination with ease. Each car maximizes some manner of cost, comfort, materials, efficiency, and safety. Compare a modern car with a 100 year old vehicle, and you will find innovation in absolutely every area. A machine for moving people. You don't need to bring anything with you. You don't need to bring your own chair to sit in, for example - the car already has that.

Now, pick any modern house. You will find almost no innovation compared to a house that is 100 years old. You'll need to bring your own chair, since the house just has empty rooms. Think of all the things you need to do in order to live. Shouldn't the architect of the house take all of these activities into consideration? Le Corbusier uses such examples as -- shouldn't there be a place to store artwork, so that there is always something different on the wall? Shouldn't there be recessed lighting, so there is no dusty chandelier to clean? Shouldn't there be as much natural light as possible, to avoid the need for artificial light in the first place?

Shouldn't the house be a machine for living, just as the car is a machine for driving? Where style is not bolted on, but rather the formal outcome of functionality?

Another phrase he uses that I really like, "the answer to a question well posed," or, "the solution to a problem well posed."

But anyway, I'm rambling. Read "Toward An Architecture." Any book that gets a new translation at almost 100 years old is probably worth a gander.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Trailer park?

</comment><comment><USER53> Am I the only one thinking of the stacks from "Ready Player One"?</comment>


Andreas' Personal Flying Suit ("Monocopter") Project - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologie-entwicklung.de/Gasturbines/Monocopter/body_monocopter.html

<comment><USER2> That is the most terrifying device I've seen in a while.

</comment><comment><USER3> In case it is unclear, this approach is a ducted fan (driven by a gas turbine) with vectored thrust nozzles. Very clever.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ducted_fan>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_vectoring>

</comment><comment><USER4> IMHO this is an amazing project so there's that, but I don't understand the flying suit in general. I would much rather fly in something that had a little more structure to it and was more aerodynamically stable (e.g. a flying car)

Is anyone building a quadricopter that'll hold one person and fit in a 2 car garage? I bet a lot of those would sell.

<comment><USER5> Quadricopter seem like a perfect candidate for personal air-vehicles. The maneuverability rocks and the problem of computer control seems to be pretty well understood. You could design a control system that anyone who's ever played a video-game could master, the only real danger would be people doing stupid things with them on purpose.

I haven't seen any examples larger than models though, do they not scale trivially?

<comment><USER6> Nothing scales trivially in the material world. The fundamental problem is that as you scale, the strength of the structure increases as N^2 but the mass increases as N^3.

> the only real danger would be people doing stupid things with them on > purpose

Not even close. The quadricopter design is very non-robust in the presence of a failed engine. That alone is probably a show-stopper for ever having one of these as a passenger vehicle.

They do make wicked cool spy drones though.

<comment><USER5> They used to have man-sized quadrotors in the early 20th century. My understanding is they went out of style because the material tech wasn't up to stuff yet and there were control issues.

Also, is there a reason these couldn't auto-gyro? The mechanics of how that works has always been a bit fuzzy for me.

<comment><USER7> Q: Auto-gyro? A: Theoretically, yes. Practically, maybe.

Auto-gyroing would require pitch control of the blades. The toy quadcopters control by differential thrust and torque. For attitude, they control the thrust of the different motors to get a vectored thrust effect. For orientation, the pairs of motors are spinning in opposite directions, so if you spin a pair faster and a pair slower, the torque imbalance between the CW and CCW spinning motors will spin the quadrotor body.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrotor>

Autorotation in a helicopter is done by setting the blade pitch negative so that the rotor is driven by the air wooshing up through the rotor. When you are close to the ground, you pull collective, trading the energy stored in the spinning of the rotor blades for vertical thrust to slow your descent. If you do it right, you land gently with a much slower rotor speed. If you do it wrong, you fall the last five feet. :-O

(Auto-gyro works like a helicopter auto-rotation. I suspect auto-gyros typically don't have as much blade pitch control as a helicopter. As I understand it, it is much safer to land an auto-gyro with forward velocity and a roll-out rather than vertically like a helicopter.)

<comment><USER6> You would only need to auto-gyro in the event of fuel starvation or multiple engine failure. That's not the hard part. The hard part is recovering from a single engine failure. Now you have an unbalanced torque. If you don't notice the problem and do something about it VERY fast then you will flip over. It might be possible to develop a control system that can use the engine opposite the failed one for attitude control while slowing the descent (or maybe even maintaining altitude) with the other two still-balanced engines, but that is one gnarly control problem.

Twin engine airplanes have this problem too but it's much less severe. Adverse roll is a second-order effect in an airplane, it's a first-order effect in a quad. An airplane has the tail tending to stabilize it. Despite all that, losing an engine on takeoff in a twin engine aircraft is often catastrophic. In a quad, I'd wager good money (though not my entire life savings) that it's unrecoverable. But if you're going to put human passengers in it you have to plan for that because it will happen sooner or later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can't quite figure out how using that _wouldn't_ roast you alive. 20 minutes with a jet turbine on your back? Ouch!

<comment><USER8> well, for one thing, i dont believe it is a _jet_ turbine. It appears that the thrust is solely produced by a giant propeller.

The gas generator that runs the big fan is probably ventilated well enough not to burn the pilot.

<comment><USER5> The article talks about it getting up to 300C. Regardless of how it works that is a little concerning.

<comment><USER9> I'd be more concerned about landing it. There's no cage around the pilot and it must weigh quite a bit, if for whatever reason you lost thrust for a moment during a descent you'd crush your lower body as you fell to the ground and the machine strapped to your back fell too.

<comment><USER10> Or even the straps of the harness restricting circulation to the pilots legs leaving them numb at landing. Ever try to walk with your foot "asleep".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Now to find the pilot brave enough to fly the thing.</comment>


A New Factoring Algorithm: breaks factoring based crypto-system in random polynomial time. - <AUTHOR> http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/a-new-factoring-algorithm/

<comment><USER2> I really shouldn't even bother reading the news on April 1st. What a farce! There's funny, and then there's just trying way too hard...

</comment><comment><USER3> Posted on Hacker News an April 2nd, but posted on Lipton's blog a day earlier...

</comment><comment><USER4> Hint: Look at the name: "Lofa Polir".</comment>


SpaceX files with the FCC to offer Web access worldwide via satelite - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/06/10/elon-musks-spacex-reportedly-files-with-the-fcc-to-offer-web-access-worldwide-via-satellite/

<comment><USER2> It's like a truck company going into the shipping business. If the shipping business succeeds, they increase demand for their trucks and at the same time, have cash flow to fund the truck development.

But the truck company's actual goal is to use the trucks to haul dirt to fill in the ocean. Filling in the ocean doesn't have an ROI for decades, so the truck company needs a profitable business to help fund it.

SpaceX will use its rockets to raise a low-Earth orbit satellite network that would provide low-latency, high bandwidth Internet connectivity globally. The profit from that business would, in theory, fund development of the space ships, and, the development of a human colony on Mars.</comment>


Ask HN: What Is a good alternative to stripe - <AUTHOR> For good alternative i mean,that It has fast and easy acceptance phase and can payout to iban(weekly/bi-weekly) PayPal <i>is not</i> a valid option <comment><USER2> Check our Mollie!

<comment><USER2> Out _</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Can I get a referral to join AngelList?  - <AUTHOR>

I don't know too many other investors, but I want to start investing in startups. I have another friend that also wants to do the same. We aren't networked with any investors and I don't know three referrals. Would anyone be willing to refer me? <comment><USER2> Seriously, you can invest in my start-up if you want. We can even meet-up today if you're around Silicon Valley. I'll do bring my laptop and do my pitch. Best deal ever. Send me an email to firstname.lastname@example.com !

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I'm not in silicon valley. I'm in southern California.

<comment><USER2> Either way, I'm looking to raise seed money at a low valuation. If you have even $5,000 to invest and a proposed term sheet then we're in business. I'm 100% serious.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Citizenkeys,

I've never invested in a startup before. I have no experience with terms sheets. This is why I wanted to join AngelList. I wanted to get acquainted with angel investing through some type of structure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I looked into this a little bit a few months ago, but have since decided to take the cash I have and bootstrap a new business instead.

These angel things seem to be tricky to get into without help from the inside. And then there's articles about the lack of new angels investing in startups.

</comment><comment><USER4> What type of startups are you looking for (tech b2b, consumer web, etc.)?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm looking for a type of y combinator type startup. I want to invest in a company that has a identifiable business model and plan to get that itself profitable. So, this includes both tech b2b and consumer web.</comment></comment>


Robokill:  Superb new Flash game from News.YC members - <AUTHOR> http://www.rocksolidarcade.com/games/robokill/ <comment><USER3> Wow, thanks guys! I'm kind of surprised to see it at the top, I actually submitted this when I first released looking for some feedback, but it was buried pretty quickly.

I've talked a bit about the technical aspects in another thread here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=203952>

I'd love to answer any questions anyone has, and I'm especially interested in getting any feedback on the purchase proposition and payment process if anyone does decide to buy it.

<comment><AUTHOR> For $9.95, I think you would do alright on Xbox Live Arcade/PS3 Network... have you thought about developing for those platforms?

<comment><USER3> We have, but we'd need to scale up a bit to be able to get on there. There's a lot of red tape involved!

<comment><AUTHOR> If I paypal you the $10 can I get beta access to your games for the next year? It feels like a much better deal if you commit to making future episodic content or if there are community tools to make new levels. Maybe puzzle rooms that you have to reclear until you solve? I think building a level editor is the next logical step and this is a great game mechanic to develop further.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Fun game, but it's missing the huge boss battles that made Smash TV so awesome (Seriously, if you want to up your conversion rates on purchases, make that last room in Episode 4 an onslaught to remember instead of four easily disposable dorks).

<comment><USER3> That's a good point. We'll definitely put bosses in for the next version.

<comment><USER5> you should have a very short domain name linking directly to the game. I tried to recomend the game and the easier way was to tell them google for robokill

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I bought the game. Not just because it's a product of News.YC members, but because it's really fun.

After beating it, I think it would be more fun if...

1\. later versions of each gun is more or less equal in power, but each have different perks. That way if someone loves their shotguns, they can effectively keep using shotguns throughout the whole game rather than being forced to replace them for a gun that will actually give them a fighting chance to win.

2\. Bosses.Be it a really fast unit that is annoyingly hard to aim at or the big enormous monster that somehow never seems to die, the game needs some things to curse at... I mean.. make it hard and to build anticipation. Bosses are also great for continuing the story in a possible sequel. ;P

3\. An upgrade you can buy that lets you jump. That would be really cool and make the game way more dynamic, especially if you make it so the grenade launchers have a little arc to them where you can sit on a safe spot and shoot ground units down with them.

4\. Perhaps skills? Regeneration or added weapon/upgrades slots? The possibilities are really endless.

That's all I've got for now. I may play through again tomorrow and write another reply in here. :)

</comment><comment><USER7> Bravo. Love the Zelda-dungeon-esque level design, the warp points make getting around easy, and the death penalty is extremely well handled. A joy to play, just lost an hour to it and never noticed the time pass. Well done.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is quite impressive! An only usability detail: why do you need all users to approve access to the file system, if that functionality is only required for saving games? I'm sure most users will be scared by that banner.

<comment><USER3> That's a Flash problem - you can possibly use more space than the 100k default if you have five profiles, and Flash will _fail silenty_ when trying to write to it unless you ask for the block up front.

And the Flash prompt is pretty badly worded - it's just the Flash cookies that it's talking about!

The whole thing has driven me crazy...

Edit: Oh, I see what you mean about waiting until the user saves. The game saves transparently when you walk around so there's no other good time to pop up with the allocation popup. Would have been much easier if we used a 'choose slot to save' kind of system when you are back at base.

<comment><USER9> Why can't you store the save games on the server? You can easily store a unique access key in the default 100k for casual users (and I assume that registered users log in).

<comment><USER3> Well, that ends up as a _lot_ of data on the server. One of the people behind the casual collective just released his tracker stats that show 100 million plays (loads), which would be 10 terabytes, assuming of course that each load resulted in a store.

We don't have a full time server guy so I'd prefer to stay out of that kind of thing, for now anyway! I think next time we'll just design the game around a strict 100k limitation.

<comment><USER10> use amazon s3

<comment><USER9> ...And an expiry time for unregistered users.

Also, think about reducing the size of the save game file! Many PS2 game saves fitted into 32K.

Good game though :)

<comment><USER3> I think that's exactly what we'll have to do - design the save files to fit in 100k. This wasn't by design - this was 1 day from release, where we discovered that amazingly enough there's no way to tell if a save was successful or not in Flash, so we couldn't ask people to up their storage only when needed (which should be rarely).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Very impressive! Unfortunately, I can't give any higher praise than "a well- executed dungeon-crawler with style." I'm having a blast now, but I get the impression I won't look back after beating it.

In many ways, this sci-fi, shooting, dungeon-crawling RPG reminds me of "Virus Hunter," a walk-through example used in the Game Design program of "Cybercamp," which I enrolled in when I was 10. Is there some common inspiration I'm not familiar with? I highly doubt Virus Hunter had much originality...

As a comic side-note, I initially thought the Light weapons meant they fired light as their projectile.

P.S.: I must compliment the decision to jump straight from one mission to the next. I initially told myself I'd stop after beating mission 1, but, with the game offering no natural breaking point (e.g.: "Congratulations! Save and continue?" or some other kind of pop-up exposition or prompt -- an analogous phenomenon: it's easier to put down a book between chapters than one paragraph into the next chapter) , I found myself telling myself "I'll stop after beating this mission." As mission 3 rolled around, I found it hard to force myself to quit. It's the game designer's job to get the players addicted, and you certainly succeeded there!

<comment><USER12> There is no higher praise for a video game then "a well-executed dungeon crawler with style"

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> OK I checked it out. And by checked it out I mean spent three hours and beat the first four missions. What an awesome game. Smooth gameplay, intuitive UI, etc. Thanks for that.

One idea I have -- cut the demo off after the first two missions. I'm kind of burnt out on the game right now and needing a break; not in the mood to buy the game and play it some more. After two missions I was deep into it and most likely to convert into a sale.

<comment><USER14> As for myself, I thought there was barely enough free content... I would have found it really cheap if you could only do the first 2 missions, especially since they're so easy. I didn't die before the 4th, which is significantly more challenging.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Superb new Flash game for News.YC members: <http://www.egg-attack.com>

Backgrounder: <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/19/ballmer_eggs/>

<http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=49451>

</comment><comment><USER16> Another game design criticism: I feel like the rooms where you start on a narrow path and get shot at from directly in front and have nearly no room to dodge... are kind of cheap.

It may just be me, but I much prefer the big rooms with obstacles and lots of baddies - they let me exercise a lot more strategy. The narrow corridor rooms just make me think "oh crap oh crap oh crap I'm going to get hit and there's nothing I can do about it!"

Perhaps in the sequel (if you do one) you can add moving platforms and rooms that change structure. Conveyer belts. Maybe a garbage compactor like in Star Wars. Muahaha.

edit: Also - perhaps more visual cue from the grenades? Maybe a little circle with trails. Also, try getting a few more explosions and picking them randomly instead of using the same one each time.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is killer. I played for about an hour right out of the gate. I'm loving it.

Constructive criticism: 1) The ambush's seem lame without bait. Put a dollar bill at the far end of the room, or something. 2) In at least one situation I got a key that was just used in the next room I was going to in the logical progression of things. This doesn't add much to the game since I don't have to go find it and seems superfluous. 3) The Flash permission-ask is lame, but that's already been talked through elsewhere in this thread. 4) Where are the really hard fights in the objective rooms? Get bosses or REALLY pack them with baddies.

Kudos, overall, though. "Superb" is an apt description for this flash game.

</comment><comment><USER16> I love the game. My only problem with it is that when Flash gets busy (lots of items on the screen), the controls get sticky. I've fallen off the side several times because I let go of a button while Flash was bogged down and it didn't register... so I kept going in that direction.

I'm on a dual 2ghz G5 with a gig of ram, running in Safari, in case you're curious.

As a side note, I'm an AS3 coder and though I love my current job that has nothing to do with games, it's stuff like this that makes me entertain thoughts of game development. I'm gonna go read the technical notes from your link now....

</comment><comment><USER18> I'll be coming back to play again... Neat! Can I ask how long it took to build, how many of you there are, and if there is any engine over the flash? I've never built a game before, so it's all foreign to me.

<comment><USER3> It took two of us about 3.5 months to build. There wasn't any engine over flash except for what was built during development. A lot of development time went into optimization, caching etc though (I talk about that in the other thread I liked to here).

<comment><USER19> Are you guys working full time on this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't know if you are still reading comments here but:

The robot the spawns bugs should have a cap on number of bugs. Otherwise you can sit there killing bugs that drop shield recharges as long as you want. You can fully recharge your shield, and also build up exp for free.

If you finish a room you get a recharge, if you kill a box with an ambush you get a second recharge.

The store seems pointless - everything is far too expensive to actually buy. i.e. when you finally have enough money to buy something, it's weaker than the gun you picked up from the floor.

All the extra powerups, like riot shield and the others, are pointless - <USER2> don't have enough spaces to actually use them. It's a no-brainer to have the shield rechargers always equiped. Unless you want to constantly switch them on and off, which is a big hassle and detracts from the game. (You get about 1 second after killing everything before it recharges, so you theoretically could swap them every single time, but that really ruins gameplay.)

Have dedicated shield recharger spots, and then spots for everything else. The reasoning is that recharges are used after a room is finished, but everything else is used during a room.

I kinda of enjoyed playing it, but the balance was poor.

</comment><comment><USER21> I find it hard to be played with the touchpad of my laptop.

<comment><USER22> What isn't hard with a touchpad?

(besides Emacs)

<comment><USER12> My MacBook Pro's trackpad is totally awesome. No more mouse pains in my hand from using my computer a lot. Most trackpads suck, but a good trackpad beats a good mouse, I think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> AWESOME GAME! Wayy better than 95% of the flash games out there.

</comment><comment><USER24> I think I would have purchased, had there been boss fights. Also, it's pretty easy to get yourself into a bad situation if you enjoy trying different weapon loadouts - since weapons sell for so much less than you buy them for, the more you experiment, the worse your gear. And there's a few rooms on the fourth level that are "Gear check" rooms - if you can't put out enough damage, you simply can't progress (narrow path, many blue enemy spawners).

</comment><comment><USER25> Can anyone give a more insight on how these games are build ?

<comment><USER26> Where to begin? Do you know how to program?

I would guess download Flex and start coding.

<comment><USER25> Yes I do. I am not a game programmer though.

<comment><USER26> I think all you need is a game loop (that is the difference to web programming).

while(isGameRunning){

       processInputs();

       processMonsters();

       updateScreen();

}

It really is quite straightforward. Start with something simple like Tetris.

<comment><USER27> Good advise. I'd recommend starting with something like Asteroids, because it's even easier than Tetris (no tricky rotation/bounds logic) and more rewarding.

<comment><USER25> Thanks for the advise. I'll try that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Glorious game.

My only question is why do the robots carry cash?

<comment><USER29> Real questions: why is there a shop in the middle of a warzone?

<comment><USER30> Presumably, there is high demand for supplies in the middle of a warzone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The graphics in this are above and beyond anything I've ever seen in a 2D flash game. Breathtaking!

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Congrats for making the good experience list: <http://goodexperience.com/games/>

Their original submission: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=84191>

</comment><comment><USER32> I really want to like this game, I really do. But the keyboard controls make it unplayable. They have a habit of sticking in the game, so I walk straight off the ledge or into a robot swarm. Does anyone else get this?

<comment><USER16> Sometimes. I think it's a Flash thing and it depends on the speed of your computer. Perhaps key up events aren't being fired correctly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> For some reason the CPU usage is very high and sometimes controls stop responding on my system (Athlon 3200+), which is annoying in big fights / when you fall off a cliff. Great game though!

</comment><comment><USER34> Multiplayer mode would be beyond awesome. Flash-based MMORPG, maybe?

</comment><comment><USER35> Ella Fitzgerald at low volume behind the gameplay music? Brilliant!

</comment><comment><USER36> ...if I pause to change audio settings, the first option throws away my progress without warning. Happened twice to me, doesn't make me want to keep playing.

</comment><comment><USER37> How do I save my game? If I can't, then I'll have to leave my browser open. Don't want to risk going to the main menu without knowing what will happen.

<comment><AUTHOR> If you go to the main menu you can start at whatever mission you are on, but not mid mission

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I found it annoying that you couldn't pay the shop to regenerate your shield. If it was low, you'd have to die before the game went on.

</comment><comment><USER39> Fun game, but it's weird that the Level 2 Weapon (the shotgun) has a lower DPS than the level 1 weapon.

Why would anyone want to use the shotgun then? :P

<comment><USER6> it does spread damage of course. I found several situations where I'd equip multiple shotguns and sit in a corner and let all the bugs come at me. :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Well done, gameplay is just fucking muhwhuaaa!

<comment><USER41> Thanks a lot. I just spent the last hour playing. Very cool though! Great job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Can't play with my Flash Security settings. Why can't you at least let me play a demo, before I adjust the security slider?

<comment><USER26> Downvoted for reporting a bug?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I tried the first level and it looks exactly like one of the castles in zelda for snes.... At least the map layout.

</comment><comment><USER43> Very fun, though there needs to be a way to turn off the sound without quitting out of the game.

</comment><comment><USER44> A lot better than I thought it would be. Thank you for exceeding my expectations.

</comment><comment><USER45> This game ruined my productivity for about 2 hours last night. Thanks a lot!

</comment><comment><USER46> Great game, very addictive! Will definately play again when I'm bored!

</comment><comment><USER18> one issue I have is the mouse-for-aim requirement. If I could hold control to turn, then release to move, that would be much better. I have trouble with using the mouse for action...

</comment><comment><USER47> Very cool game, well done.

What language(s) did you use?

</comment><comment><USER48> Cool game - reminds me of Smash TV

<comment><USER28> > Cool game - reminds me of Smash TV

Which in turn should remind you of RoboTron.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotron:_2084>

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> nice one... i love it... is it completely coded in flash?

</comment><comment><USER12> I love this game. This is exactly the kind of game I want to play when I want to kill time but not learn something complicated. It's easily the best flash game I have played.

You should have some bosses, and some retro zelda dungeons or something though.</comment>


How I Asynchronized a Synchronous Python Library  - <AUTHOR> http://emptysquare.net/blog/motor-internals-how-i-asynchronized-a-synchronous-library/ I wrote Motor, a non-blocking MongoDB driver for Python and Tornado. Here's how it works. <comment><USER2> This is excellently written. 10gen should keep up the could work.</comment>