Why Hulu Should Embrace Boxee - <AUTHOR> http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/02/the-valentines-day-breakup.html <comment><USER2> I haven't read all of the comments around this topic as I simply don't have the time, but might this be about Boxee not having the systems in place to allow Hulu to properly pay local affiliates a portion of the revenue generated from commercials? Or perhaps Hulu doesn't want to pay out a portion to local affiliates?

I appreciate Fred's argument re: it's just a browser, but Boxee is optimized and intended for watching on a TV. If people are watching Boxee shows on their TV, then they're not watching and/or DVR-ing the local affiliate versions which might have local advertising, etc. (true that most DVR people skip commercials, but some don't). Thus local affiliates could argue that Boxee makes Hulu a direct competitor for their local TV viewing audiences. I would argue, naively, that this is why you don't see nation-wide NBC, FOX, and CBS channels on your cable box -- because it would cannibalize affiliate revenue. But that, in effect, is what Boxee is creating.

I wonder if it would make a difference if Hulu were share revenue (or more revenue as the case may be) with local affiliates and put systems in place to allow affiliates to insert local advertising into shows based on a Boxee user's location.

This, of course, doesn't matter for CNN, for example, because all of the money goes into a single pot: The CNN pot. But that's not true with NBC, Fox, etc. I don't think. Correct?

The one hole in my theory is AppleTV -- you can buy broadcast shows on Apple TV, but perhaps the fact that they're commercial-free somehow makes a difference or gets around a contractual obligation.

<comment><USER3> Boxee is under no obligation to pay local affiliates. Hulu clearly has the geolocation ability to make that happen, if they really wanted to. All that Boxee does is provide a specialized Web browser that happens to be more useful than Firefox when using a big-screen TV with your computer. They don't circumvent Hulu advertisements or anything else, and there is nothing preventing people from just using Firefox with their big-screen TV instead. The content providers are wrong in this issue, plain and simple.

For the last time, they need to stop treating everything new as a threat to their old revenue streams.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think it was made pretty clear, that Hulu does embrace boxee, but it was the content providers that pulled the plug. Without content from the providers there would be no Hulu, so they had to cave.

<comment><USER5> This warrants repeating: Hulu is doing their very best to drag the content providers into this century. Boxee gets this, which is why they complied with a request from Hulu, without forcing the issue. Hulu asked, Boxee agreed, and now Hulu tries to convince content providers to change their mind.

<comment><USER6> I think boxee and this VC are obfuscating the important point that Hulu's content providers and its owners are one in the same. Hulu is jointly owned by NBC Universal and News Corp (owner of FOX and 21st Century Fox). So, in the end, neither the stockholders nor the stakeholders support Boxee.

This is no surprise; why should they want to nurture a less lucrative distribution channel on the same medium as their primary source of revenue?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's a reason why content providers don't embrace Boxee. NBC and Fox control Hulu. That makes it safe. Hulu won't start showing programming outside of what the major content creators make. Boxee, with its open philosophy, would welcome high-quality non-establishment content. If people get into the habit of using Hulu, they don't have to compete with new content creators. If people get into the habit of using Boxee, lots of people could start creating content and having access to the same distribution channel. That's dangerous for the studios who like to have near-monopoly conditions for their content.

I didn't say it was a good reason, just that it was a reason.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is why Hulu should embrace Boxee if you own preferred shares in that company. If you own NBC, not so much.</comment>


How I hacked My CompSci Class - <AUTHOR> http://crypticswarm.com/how-i-hacked-my-compsci-class

<comment><USER2> Rather the KobiYashi Maru of robotics, no?

Were this a real battle (to the death?) between real fully-formed AIs, such hacking should be expected. So what you did was in-part assisting your bot. But it was still cheating. ;) (Had I done the same and been caught I would've been expelled. Kudos for being lucky and/or having an understanding teacher. And for sticking to your design in the first place, despite ultimately cheating.)

I wonder if you would've been caught had you not put the terminal spam in there.... Or would the other students kept on scratching their heads and blaming their own borrowed designs?

</comment><comment><USER3> Bending the rules? By modifying the environment so you would win? Sure, it's fun to get back at those cheaters but you were just cheating on a whole new level... And how did you get the competition to use your environment jar?

<comment><AUTHOR> We played on a computer in the classroom. Just modified the one on that computer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As a high school teacher, i predict a person with hacker style as you is on the way to a bright future. Good luck. :)

</comment><comment><USER5> The ethics part of me just raised a flag. The hacker part of me salutes you :)</comment>


BitTorrent Defense Lawyer Joins Copyright Trolls - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-defense-lawyer-joins-copyright-trolls-111126/ <comment><USER2> My girlfriend's father has this saying: "When you have a lawyer, you have TWO problems"

i.e. the underlying problem, and the lawyer himself

</comment><comment><USER3> It's a profit driven industry like any other. I find it disgusting, but I don't find it surprising.

</comment><comment><USER4> You know what his choice made me do? Donate to the EFF (they apparently even have a sponsor to match donations to $500k). I hope Mike realized how asinine his decision was.

</comment><comment><USER5> Ignoring the moral aspects here, this is a smart strategic move. Who better to bring a case against bittorrent users than one who knows all their defensive moves?

From the other side, lawyers defending bittorrent users against Meier can use his old arguments against him. Though I don't know how much that will help.

<comment><USER6> May be this was his plan all along.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is why we can't have nice things....

and why the EFF [Subpoenadefense] list is basically dead.

</comment><comment><USER8> From a lawyers perspective, this may even be admirable. part of the ethos of the industry is the ability to defend and prosecute both sides of an argument.

</comment><comment><USER9> he's got more issues than just morality here, as the DC rules of professional conduct for lawyers apply to him..

in part, he may be barred (or may at least need consent) from any litigation where his new clients interests are adverse to his former clients interests.

For instance... " a lawyer shall not represent a client with respect to a matter if: (1) That matter involves a specific party or parties and a position to be taken by that client in that matter is adverse to a position taken or to be taken by another client in the same matter even though that client is unrepresented or represented by a different lawyer; (2) Such representation will be or is likely to be adversely affected by representation of another client;"

See: [http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/rules_o...](http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/rules_of_professional_conduct/amended_rules/rule_one/rule01_07.cfm)

</comment><comment><USER10> It would be great if he turned out to have switched sides because he felt aggrieved and wronged by the people he used to defend, much like Benedict Arnold.

</comment><comment><USER11> Maybe he was a double-agent for the copyright cartels all along. Or a triple- agent now.

<comment><USER12> If you mean he can turn around and sue copyright trolls again, he cannot do that. His former clients will claim there is a conflict, since now he has access to their data under attorney client relationship.

<comment><USER13> Doesn't this work the other way around?

Perhaps not since his previous clients would have been individual cases for disparate individuals and there wouldn't have been so much 'data'?</comment></comment></comment>


«The Age of the Cockroach» The Age of the Unicorns is ending... - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/age-cockroach-caterina-fake <comment><USER2> Not able to understand the basis of this article.

1\. What is 'work-horse' startup? 2\. how is a 'work-horse' different from an 'unicorn'? 3\. Would not the ubiquity of the 'cockroaches' result in many more c/r failures? Would their failure rate be much less, or would more survive just because there are supposedly many more? 4\. is this a veiled zombie- apocalypse article? 5\. is the 'plague' an economic bubble? If so, do the demographics and statistics map well with the precursor economic behavior for bubble formation? 6\. and who has been 'living large'? Have yet to see any largess in this neck of the woods.

<comment><AUTHOR> 1.2.: Business model for "horses" is to pay back shareholders by delivering a valuable service to actual customers at a reasonable price. Business model for "unicorns" is to build the largest possible user base to attract the largest possible investment inflows.

More information: Unicorns vs. Horses [https://medium.com/@awilkinson/unicorns-vs- horses-f81d8dd61f...](https://medium.com/@awilkinson/unicorns-vs- horses-f81d8dd61f17)</comment></comment>


Oracle: Google 'directly copied' our Java code - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9193538/Oracle_Google_directly_copied_our_Java_code?taxonomyId=17 <comment><USER2> in part they seem to be claiming copyright on the java api. is that possible?

some other examples come to mind: wine's implementation of the windows api, various unices/linux implementing the unix api (but maybe there's some waiver here?), and so on.

<comment><USER3> Among SCO's myriad claims, they alleged Linux violates its copyright over the SysV APIs and ABIs. I doubt the court got around to addressing that issue.

<comment><USER4> If the above is correct, then under Oracle rules re-writing an API would be copyright infringement?

Not only would this restrict the ability to write alternatives to an API, but would effectively disallow code which is 100% yours from being run against an '''invalid''' "API". (I guess this is the Java trap RS defined?)

Some one should copyright println()or sprintf().

I have wanted to like the JVM for 10+ years, and now that technically it's in a good place for server-side code, looks like there is a battle over whether it is going to be "open" or not.

My opinion (without knowing enough about this situation in particular I'm afraid):

API's are "public" interfaces and an instrument for free speech. To restrict the use of an API goes beyond protecting the author of the API.

Many coders may not know Google wrote its own implementation, (or modified the original) and the "Java" brand and Java marketplace has been complicated. However, complexity is unavoidable and necessary when working with complex systems.

Company A makes bolt X (a patented bolt). Any company can make nuts. Company B makes a very different size bolt (Y) that is designed to use some of the nuts that fit bolt X. The bolt was not copied, but the diameter and threading is the same, by design.

Is this illegal?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's the actual complaint: <http://www.scribd.com/doc/39856344/oraclevsgoogle>

I don't see too much about the copyright claims in here, though.

</comment><comment><USER6> Well, I know what language I won't be using for future projects...

The creation of this sort of legal uncertainty around a project that was open- source in name if not always in spirit is a concern though.

<comment><USER7> To start, I'll say that I think Oracle has damaged their Java brand with their lawsuit. I have no idea how things will end up in courts, but that is another matter. What Oracle is accusing Google of having done is hardly comparable to what thousands of programmers, myself included, have done in thousands of Java projects over the years. I understand the skepticism and doubts about the direction of Java under Oracle's guidance, but I certainly don't have any fears about using Java as I have been.

<comment><USER8> I don't think Oracle particularly cares about the Java brand.

The Java brand was important to Sun because in recent years its value had eclipsed the value of the Sun brand, to the extent that they even renamed their stock ticker 'JAVA'. They poured resources into Java and Java-related projects because it was all that was keeping the ailing company relevant.

Oracle has no such problem with its brand. The company hasn't a great reputation as a philanthropist, and you have to look at what Oracle can get out of its ownership of Java. Those things are (a) exploiting the Intellectual Property, and (b) maintaining support for Oracle's own Java products.

Being a 'good steward of the language' is only important if it serves one of those two goals: i.e. if it improves Oracle's products, helps existing paying Java licensees, or creates opportunities for Oracle to license Java IP.

I'm not sure this is a healthy way for a programming language to be maintained.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why didn't google go with more open technologies? They wrote the fastest javascript interpreter and they couldn't figure out how to use it in their phones for app development. I guess Java has more libraries and whatnot but honestly how many apps make any real use of them.

<comment><USER10> It wasn't Google who made the decision to use Java. What we today know as Android OS was developed by Android, Inc (purchased by Google in 2005). Android, Inc. was led by Andy Rubin and their technology was essentially the same as the technology used in his previous startup, Danger Inc, started in 2002.

Decision to use Linux for the kernel and Java as a language for user space programs was therefore made in 2002 and at the time it was a very sensible decision.

V8 was released 6 years later and even today JavaScript is extremely bare bones as a language and wrt. to base libraries (only recently there has been a push to standardize on basic things like file support, modules etc.).

As such JavaScript is not capable enough to write many kinds of programs one would like to write. Not today and definitely not in 2002.

Additionally, Dalvik Java VM in Android is much better tuned for constrained, low memory, low power mobile devices than V8, which was designed for desktop class computer. Technically it's a better solution for the target devices than V8.

<comment><USER11> "Decision to use Linux for the kernel and Java as a language for user space programs was therefore made in 2002 and at the time it was a very sensible decision".

And when they failed to come to terms with Sun to license JavaME, they could have revisited that decision, especially considering that they essentially threw out the Android UI when iPhone came out and changed everyone's notion of what a smartphone should like. Android post-iPhone looks and acts nothing like Android pre-iPhone.

Even if they kept their code in Java, they could have made it so that the official way to write third-party applications was to write native code. That would have given them the flexibility of migrating away from Java without impacting third parties in the case of future problems over Java intellectual property.

"As such JavaScript is not capable enough to write many kinds of programs one would like to write. Not today and definitely not in 2002".

What kind of program for a mobile device would Javascript today not be capable of?

<comment><USER12> Handling binary files? The language itself is fine but some support for special things is still lacking. But that's changing fast, in the future it would be an ok choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does anyone smell SCO?

<comment><USER12> Except Oracle has revenues to offset the cost of litigation, this could last years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Dunno....looking at the code examples , particularly PolicyNodeImpl.java looks like they where simply converted straight from the original code. There is simply no way the Google code was not copied/generated from the Sun code.

You can view the example here ->

<http://www.scribd.com/doc/40316099/orclgoogcode>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> If this fight goes in favor of oracle will it impact android developments ? I mean for developers how does it matters ?

</comment><comment><USER15> someone directly copied my answer to 2+2. boo hoo.

</comment><comment><USER16> is this a response to google's response or just a really old reporting of the case?

i thought google already completely trashed their claims in quite harsh words

</comment><comment><USER17> Does it mean Oracle never _copied_ anything?</comment>


Ask HN: Review my startup - thewillcreator.com - <AUTHOR>

Please help me review my minimum viable product. I'm looking for some feedback on the design and workflow. This is a site to create a legal will by answering a series of questions.<p>Http://thewillcreator.com <comment><USER3> I was not even willing to risk my email address or set up a throwaway one. You need pictures, examples, and a much better value proposition - <USER2> since you're inviting people to think about their assets, and death. Nolo.com is the leader in this space, and will be hard to disrupt. Sorry.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi anigbrowl,

We are going to show an example will soon. As for now, we have removed the requirement to register before you start creating a will. Thank you for your feedback.</comment></comment>


PDFmyURL.com - Convert and save pdf from any webpage for free - <AUTHOR> http://pdfmyurl.com/ <comment><USER2> I'd seen this kind of thing before but voted up after checking out the 'advanced options' section. After some googling of those "man page" style options, I see now this is probably a web wrapper around [1] so I will more likely integrate that program directly into something I'm working on. But still bookmarking the site for quick jobs.

[1] - <http://github.com/antialize/wkhtmltopdf>

<comment><USER3> Ooh -- if that works I could do my dashboards in HTML/CSS, print them to PDF, convert the PDF to an image file, and use that. That would make my life much easier, as producing the PDFs directly is a bit of a kludge. Thanks, I'll have to look into that later.

<comment><USER4> You should have a look at Flying Saucer/xhtmlrenderer (<https://xhtmlrenderer.dev.java.net/>). It handles every CSS rule I could throw at it. If you simply need a commandline app converting a XHTML file into a PDF, you're done in 10 lines of code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Even better than a bookmarklet, make it so that anyone can type your URL in front of the one they want PDFed, and it will do so automatically. e.g. <http://pdfmyurl.com/news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1190151>

Aviary.com does this for site screenshots, and I love it.

<comment><USER6> I first heard of this mechanic when digg launched their ill-received url shortening service. I wish all url shortening services did this.

As far as the bookmarklet goes it would be nice if you could set some of the common options, page-size, orientation, with some nice checkboxes, like Readability (<http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> For offline version I had been using this application for some time now...

WebKit HTML to PDF <http://code.google.com/p/wkhtmltopdf/>

This is a PDF generator which uses WebKit engine to render the HTML page and then converts to PDF. Has command line advanced options, like this site.

<comment><USER8> that is one awesome tool, simply powerful thank you for the tip.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> No offense to the op but this is another reason why I prefer OS X to any other operating system.. this stuff is built in. You can print any site right to PDF from any browser (as it's an OS feature). No Adobe needed.

<comment><USER10> Try doing that with your Mac OS X and <http://www.woothemes.com/demo/dailyedition/>

Does it work correctly? pdfmyurl.com does and so do a few more online such services.

<comment><USER6> Safari allows me to save my site, mentioned below, to PDF perfectly but also fails on your link and the opposite is true for pdfmyurl.com.

Edit: It appears to be the advanced option "print-media-type" that is the problem. Browsers do it by default and if you have pdfmyurl.com use it, the link you posted will look bad. I suspect that this would not be a problem if the theme did not restrict its CSS to "screen". I believe all of the CSS is dumped by the browser when printing because of this directive. The fonts are still correct so the link tags without media attributes probably have those CSS rules.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm glad to see the print-media-type option but it's not close enough to what I get when I print a page and then "Save As PDF" in Safari or Chrome.

[http://pdfmyurl.com?url=nirmalpatel.com/cv.html&-O=Portr...](http://pdfmyurl.com?url=nirmalpatel.com/cv.html&-O=Portrait& --print-media-type) vs <http://nirmalpatel.com/docs/Nirmal_Patel_CV.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER11> Nice job guys. This is off-topic but do you guys know of a good library to convert HTML to PDF (Python)? I'm wondering how did guys at pdfmyurl.com did it? Any ideas

<comment><USER12> Have a look at <http://pdfcrowd.com> \- it is a service providing an html to pdf online API and it has bindings for python. It is in private beta now, so if you are interested please just contact me and I will send you an invitation key.

<comment><USER11> Hmm, looks good. Cannot find your email in your profile, can you kindly let me know your email? Or can you email me at firstname.lastname@example.com. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Excellent work - congratulations! Even ignoring the advanced options your converter is fast and produces accurate results!

Very well done!

</comment><comment><USER13> Anyone know of a similar service that can handle MS-Office type documents?

</comment><comment><USER14> Very nice, will be adding "print to pdf" support to my site post haste.</comment>


Fresh start for Tech entrepreneur - <AUTHOR> Hey guys, I've always been a business person and running a ecommerce business. I think I will start another startup in the near future (more tech-heavy than the one I'm currently running). I feel like to move on into tech world for less dependence on technical founders. So I've chosen frontend army. Having learnt some basic HTML5/CSS3 and now I'm moving on framework Boostrap. I don't know to get extremely familiar with those syntax (I was watching tons of videos on code a website from scratch and seeing them using syntax and making the elements in the right place so easily). Anyone can give my some advices for a business guy to further my knowledge on Boostrap typically and other frameworks as well? <comment><USER2> Also there are a lot of templates out there for cheap. Also check out bootsrap widgets

</comment><comment><USER2> I found pluralsight really useful for online technology courses.</comment>


Astronomers in South Africa discover mysterious alignment of black holes - <AUTHOR> https://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/2816-astronomers-in-south-africa-discover-mysterious-alignment-of-black-holes <comment><USER2> What about random chance?

<comment><USER3> would highly depend the resolution of the stream directions</comment></comment>


The Linux 3.1 Kernel May Have A New Logo - <AUTHOR> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTg5Nw

<comment><USER2> Great Message!

Who is mocked? Everyone who tries Linux with Kernel 3.1 the first time will think: Wow, Linux today is where Windows was 1992 :-)

</comment><comment><USER3> this is the problem with the linux community.. a very immature attitude that doesn't get them anywhere but makes the community look like a crowd of obnoxious troll hackers.</comment>


Original Star Wars Battlefront gets multiplayer again, 16 years after release - <AUTHOR> https://gamenationworld.com/gaming/star-wars-battlefront-multiplayer-again <comment><USER2> I got excited because my initial thought was of Galactic Battlegrounds, but then I re-read the headline. Battlefront was nice, but Galactic Battlegrounds was special.

</comment><comment><USER3> Now if only they would patch in multiplayer into Galactic Conquest mode within BF2 classic so that it would be at least on feature parity with the console ports.

</comment><comment><USER4> Battlefront 1 was an amazing game released by an amazingly talented game studio way ahead of its time.

</comment><comment><USER5> Does this apply to (the original) BF2 as well?</comment>


Does "Free Will" Even Make Sense? - <AUTHOR> http://steve-patterson.com/does-free-will-even-make-sense/ <comment><USER2> Arguing, that illusion of having a free will is "just a useless trick, that happens to cost a lot of physical resources and serves absolutely no function" is indeed ridiculous.

Believing in free will apparently has an evolutionary advantage regardless of origins of such beliefs.

</comment><comment><USER3> > and it's just a useless trick, that happens to cost a lot of physical > resources

Oh? What would those resources otherwise be used for?</comment>


Sennheiser announces "Best Headphones in the World" priced at €50,000 - <AUTHOR> http://en-de.sennheiser.com/news-the-best-headphones-in-the-world <comment><USER2> "Orpheus' striking design marries form to function. Its amplifier sits on a housing crafted from glass, and a solid block of Carrara marble. This luxurious natural stone—the type made famous by Michelangelo's Renaissance sculptures—lends beauty but also prevents structure-borne noise. To create a visually stunning design, control dials are painstakingly crafted to the highest quality. Each dial is milled from a single piece of brass before being plated with chrome. This is music turned into an object."

Looks like more than an engineering exercise, this was an extreme exercise for the marketing department to fine tune their hyperbole.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> More: [http://en-us.sennheiser.com/orpheus](http://en- us.sennheiser.com/orpheus)</comment>


Build Enterprise Applications for the Employees, Not Managers - <AUTHOR> http://dmix.ca/2008/08/building-enterprise-software-for-the-employees-not-managers/

<comment><USER2> If you design it for the employees, I'm not sure it qualifies as "Enterprise" software any more. Not that that's a bad thing.

</comment><comment><USER3> Individual employees of a large organization are the very definition of a hard sale. Several hurdles come to mind:

1\. Very few people are self-starters to the degree that they'll learn new software voluntarily.

2\. It's rare to find anyone willing to spend their own money on something that isn't going to generate an immediate return, and non-managers don't have authority to expense much.

3\. Many large companies prohibit installing unapproved software, and get really antsy if anything proprietary leaves the corporate network.

I suspect you'd have more success targeting business applications at self- employed and small business users. There's always been a healthy market for financial and legal products servicing people who don't have the money to waste on 'enterprisey' software.</comment>


Flipboard's Mike McCue on the Last 36 Hours, What's Next and What's Coming Soon - <AUTHOR> http://www.pehub.com/77996/mike-mccue-on-life-over-the-last-36-hours-flipboard%E2%80%99s-brand-new-invitation-system-and-what-else-is-coming-next-and-soon/

<comment><USER2> You wonder if Apple will take notice of this app and decide to come up with their own app and have it on iOS by default - they'll then be able to get the tie in with the content publishers as the 'official' application. I could then see Apple launching subscription 'bundles' for content or sharing the ad revenue with publishers.

They could then remove flipboard from the app store as it duplicates functionality :)

Does that sound feasible?

<comment><USER3> Truth: Steve Jobs came in for a demo before launch.

Sidenote: It sounds like apple has you paranoid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _What we're been trying to do is set it up so that the content we're displaying is just a portion of what they are publishing. We just give people an excerpt._

This is what killed my initial buzz for this thing. To be useful to me, a media consumption tool has to either provide a nice way to read complete articles _or_ an efficient way to aggregate/filter large numbers of articles. Flipboard fails at the former by forcing a complete context switch half way through the article. It fails at the latter by trying to be the former.

Asking for Facebook and Twitter logins without any apparent need or explanation was also a deal breaker.

The excitement for this product was justified. The iPad reading experience is pretty fragmented and leaves a craving for some sort of universal reader like this, but Flipboard hasn't got it right.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you look at these reviews people don't seem happy.. guess this is what the ceo reply is meant to respond to?

<http://ax.itunes.apple.com/us/app/flipboard/id358801284?mt=8>

      Customer Reviews
      Will be great? by dlbdlb

      At present, not connecting to my Twitter and fb accounts.
      Problem with the instant popularity?

      Buggy by Chakri

      Current version is buggy. Can't login into FaceBook.
      Every attempt throws an over the capacity exception.

      So Awesome! by katzilla349

      Refuses to add any of the content I attempt to add.
      Way Cool!

      And why is it that I can't copy and paste most of the
      text (and who knows what else)? I'm growing weary of
      digital media that doesn't leverage the advantages of
      being DIGITAL!

      Thanks for wasting my time with that one guys!

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm curious to know what they're doing on the back end beyond the fact they're using Amazon to host the infrastructure.

<comment><USER7> They running some version of arc90's readability to extract articles and display them nicely. <http://twitter.com/arc90/status/19079131365>

<comment><USER8> I developed a RESTful API that runs Readability on the server. It's currently private, but with enough developer interest I may open it up.</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook snags the guy who built Google's Chrome OS - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_snags_the_guy_who_built_googles_chrome_os.php

<comment> brown9-2 The second-to-last paragraph in this article reads like it came straight out of a Facebook press release:

 _Put these two new people together with Firefox co-founders Blake Ross and Joe Hewitt, brought to Facebook almost three years ago and Paul Buchheit and Bret Taylor, the creators of Gmail, Adsense and Friendfeed, acquired just under one year ago, and what do you get? A monster team with the experience to create a compelling, fully wrap-around internet experience for hundreds of millions of users._

Also am I the only one who finds it a little odd that Facebook sends out press alerts about which engineers it snagged from which companies? I understand why some people - or at least, some websites - would care, it just all sounds so silly in the end.

<comment><USER2> I think this is mostly free publicity to acquire other talent. Engineers like to work with other good engineers. For instance, I'd love to work with Joe Hewitt and Paul Buchheit and Bret Taylor. Firebug, gmail and tornado.py (respectively) are great pieces of software produced by very talented engineers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Honestly Google's bifurcation in supporting both Chrome OS and Android was, at least to me, a perplexing decision, as they seem fundamentally (competing UI's, similar market) to be incompatible roadmaps.

If touch tablets ends up upending the netbook category, then Chrome OS won't really have a home. It doesn't have the capability of taking advantage of advanced hardware, and netbook functionality might be fully accounted for by Android tablets. Chrome OS was an interesting bet in the direction of computing (smaller, inexpensive notebooks as the norm for Internet consumption and light office work), but things might not pan out the way Chrome's founders had thought.

<comment><USER4> Steve Ballmer said it quite right: Android was a bet on the technology of the past (OS, installable apps, etc), and Chrome OS is a bet on the future (webapps, light clients, etc.)

<comment><USER5> That was Ray Ozzie, not Ballmer.

<comment><USER6> Ha, I was just thinking that it sounded extremely insightful by Ballmer standards...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That is a lot of talent, seemingly in stuff that Facebook doesn't really do. Any ideas on what they're up to over there?

I don't know if the world needs another browser, but maybe Facebook is working on one?

<comment><USER8> Reminds me of Google 5 years ago. There's a point in a companies life when they're hot and smart people are easily lured in by promises of world-changing work and working with other really smart people. What happens though is they eventually realize that it's just another job and a room full of really smart people isn't always the best recipe to create something that changes the world (and your bank account). Sometimes you need a few great leaders and a team of dedicated "team players" to really pull off something cool.

I believe Facebook is entering that phase now where they'll have tons of money to throw at these guys with promises of working on "the next big thing". Expect these guys to leave after 3-4 years for smaller more progressive ventures.

<comment><USER9> Picking up some pre-IPO options in a Facebook would also be a nice reason to become a Facebooker.

Google had 2,668 employees in September 2004, just after it IPO'd, and at the beginning of 2010 it had about 20,000.

eBay IPO'd in September 1998 with only about 30 employees and revenues of $4.7 million. In 2008 it had about 16,000.

Facebook will definitely IPO at some point, its VCs will demand it, and this recruit is perhaps more for IPO marketing than anything else. It now claims to have 1400+ staff.

<http://investor.google.com/corporate/faq.html#employees> [http://www.swivel.com/workbooks/27740-Google-Number-of- emplo...](http://www.swivel.com/workbooks/27740-Google-Number-of-employees- since-founding) <http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?factsheet>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm really curious about the core motivations a devloper like Matt has for leaving a project like Chrome OS before it's seen through to completion.

To be as gifted as Matt appears to be, you have to have a deep love for what you do. And with that love, I would hope comes a sense of pride and ownership in your work. I just couldn't fathom walking away from something like Chrome OS to work at Facebook.

I imagine Facebook gave him one heck of an offer. But if there is anything I've learned in the short time I've been a devloper and the even shorter amount of time I've been reading HN, it's that people who truly love what they do in this industry don't always go for the gold. And even if he is dirven by financial gain, I can't imagine he was wanting for much of anything working at Google, so why the switch?

<comment><USER11> My understanding is that there are few dozens of quality programmer like him at Google, where he doesn't stand out the same way he would stand out if he worked in a group with fewer high profile programmer. I don't think on Google scale there are too many programmers who are indispensable.

Just guessing, of course.

<comment><USER12> Exactly. Am I the only one that doesn't see the attraction in becoming employee #20,000 and having to conform to The Google Way of Doing Things?

Smart people: yes that's nice.

Look good on resume later: sure.

Zillions of employees and a big inherited culture/system and heirarchy with skads of established products and infrastructure that you parachute into: no thanks!

<comment><USER13> Facebook's not Google-sized... sure, but Facebook's not exactly tiny, either. I bet his team at Facebook will be at least as big as his Chrome team was at Google... and I'm sure he'll have to conform to "The Facebook Way of Doing Things." Honestly, I'm not seeing the difference, other than the pre-IPO potential.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not to trivialize the work and pardon my ignorance, but isn't Chrome OS just a locked-down Linux with a browser running on top of it?

<comment><AUTHOR> I could be mistaken, but I believe it runs an entirely new windowing system as well.

Edit: It does indeed run a new windowing system, but details are scant on this blog entry: [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google- ch...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome- os.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> With this, and the rumor of Google starting a new Facebook competing service, is the war between Google->Facebook heating up in the same way that Google->Apple has?

Why does Google feel the need to dominate every corner of our Internet experience? Is it because their eventual business model is to wrap ads on all content everywhere? Facebook's business model is to add every physical item to the social graph, so I suppose there are natural conflicts there.

<comment> brown9-2 Do you have any further info on that rumor?

This is something distinct from Buzz, Orkut, etc?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sweet. How long will Facebook be able to delay the IPO to steal/keep the best talent in the industry?

<comment><USER17> Seems like a winning strategy. Facebook is the Peter Pan of Silicon Valley right now. The "grownups" don't stand a chance -- you can never go back to being pre-IPO again.</comment></comment>


People trying to save enough to retire by 40 - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/aug/18/meet-people-saving-retire-by-40-fire-movement <comment><USER2> I have noticed in articles and blogs advocating for early retirement, a general sentiment that work is bad and actively reduces quality of life and is therefore something that should be avoided at all costs. While I do think working 60-70+ hours a week at a job you hate in order to spend money on convenience items isn't a great formula for a meaningful life, I am also not convinced that the only solution is to grind it out until one no longer has to work. Perhaps working toward a more meaningful career could be part of the equation as well, and wouldn't therefore require a scorched earth approach to finances

<comment><USER3> > Perhaps working toward a more meaningful career could be part of the > equation as well

A lot of jobs aren't meaningful. Imagine writing ad software. Or filming commercials for loan sharks. Not everyone has the luxury of good, meaningful work.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, also regardless of how meaningful you find a job, you almost definitely don't get an option to not work Fridays, or take multi-month vacations, or to stop working for several years then come back. You must let it take over your life to the extent that they want it to.

<comment><USER3> > option to not work Fridays, or take multi-month vacations, or to stop > working for several years then come back

I want this so bad. I'd be happy to take a pay cut to get it.

I wonder if engineering firms will catch on and begin to offer this flexibility.

I hope that in the future, if my start-up ever takes off, that I'll be able to offer this to my employees. Because it's something I want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> No children. No travel.

Living frugally and then the risk of an early death?

Is this really that great?

<comment><USER6> Why is there risk of an early death?

<comment><USER7> There _always_ is risk of an early death.

<comment><USER8> I've seen coworkers die in their 30s, 40s and 50s from cancers and heart attacks. Can concur.

<comment><USER7> A picture that will never leave me: 0745, one fine Tuesday morning, Van Diemem straat, Amsterdam about 30 years ago on my bike on the way to work. Ambulance parked on the side of the street. Very young guy on the stretcher, clearly a corpse. Very fancy briefcase sitting upright next to him, his hand still aimed at it.

It wasn't the corpse that got me, but the briefcase. It talked tales of ambition and a future and suddenly there was none of all that. Heart attack, according to the 5 lines he made in the local newspaper the next day. I can still see that briefcase. It's a good reminder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> At first I was wondering how people do this when surprise medical bills can easily bankrupt someone with 25x their yearly spending saved up, as mentioned in the article. Then I realized that this was The Guardian reporting non-US news.

<comment><USER10> Can't people get their own insurance or ACA in the US?

Surprise medical bills can hit anyone regardless of their financial situation

<comment><USER11> You can get screwed even with insurance. I had a bike accident in 2006, breaking both of my arms required me to get a bi lateral radial head replacement. It turned out the hospital to which I was sent was out of my insurance network, and I ended up getting an out of network bill for $50,000 USD.

<comment><USER7> Man that sucks. The whole 'out of network' thing sounds like a perfect excuse. As though patients have a whole lot of control over which parties the insurance companies sign up with.

<comment><USER11> And you can't avoid it really. I asked the hospital if they took my insurance as I was being rolled into the ER. They said yes. That means that they are happy to bill the insurance, not that that are in the insurance network.

Check out this story: [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy- and-politics/2019/1/7/18137967/er-bills-zuckerberg-san-francisco-general- hospital)

<comment><USER7> For contrast: I also had a biking accident, broke my right leg in six places, pretty complex breaks too. Seven hours of operations and a lot of effort to get back to normal which more or less worked. Total cost: $500 or so in deductibles, not a cent more. I still have half an Ikea in my right leg on account of this little trip for my health, still debating whether to have it removed or not, which will be free because it is related to the original accident.

That story is disgusting, what I find really shocking is that apparently if you get the media interested suddenly your bill evaporates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My father died when he was 36. I was 11 years old at the time. I am the complete opposite to these people. I believe life is for living, now, not later, because who knows even if you'll get there.

I always had the 36 figure in my head: "I will enjoy life as much as possible to 36 and then calm down". Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) I have trained my brain to enjoy life to its fullest as much as possible, I can't snap out of it.

I suspect that these people who forego living to put cash to one side with the premise that in the future they'll be able to live the good life will find they are mentally unable to make that switch too.

I am now 44 and can say that my 20s were amazing, my 30s even better (because I understood myself much more), my 40s have been pretty good, but it's clear I am slowing down a touch - the motivations to live every moment are fighting with the slight loss in energy as I age.

Why anybody would think it makes sense to put the best years of their lives (in terms of physical fitness) to one side in the promise of some later payoff is beyond me.

<comment><AUTHOR> the point of early retirement is to have more time to do what your want, to live the life you want

calming down does not mean not living life to its fullest potential.

<comment><USER12> > the point of early retirement is to have more time to do what your want, to > live the life you want

Pretty difficult to do if you're already dead, right?

<comment><USER13> It comes down to probability. Let's say we want to maximize the total hours of time enjoyed living before before dying.

Let's say we know we're going to die in a month with 100% certainty. We might liquidate all of our assets. Go into debt. Pay to fly loved ones from all over the country to spend time with them. Spare no expense.

On the other hand, let's say instead we know we're going to die when we turn 100 and with 100% certainty. In that case, it makes sense to delay gratification, invest more, and get the benefit of compounded returns. We might aim to have enough passive income coming in at around 60 or 70, and then we can quit working and slowly spend it all so that our the last check we write before dying bounces.

Since we don't know when we die, the best strategy is somewhere in between these two extremes. If the actuarial tables say we have 50 years left, I'm more inclined to believe the better strategy is likely to look like the second scenario.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> One of the earliest advocates in this game was Mr. Money Moustache[1] who spelled out the arithmetic of "save half what you earn until you can live on your savings" back in 2011 or so. Very entertaining writer in the contrarian vein.

[1] [https://www.mrmoneymustache.com](https://www.mrmoneymustache.com)

<comment><USER15> I find reading his blog helpful in that it gives me a new perspective on things. E.g. putting a dollar amount risk on buying a "safer" car and things like that.

I highly recommend reading his blog to many people, in that I think it will help you think a bit differently.

One of my favorite blog posts[0] is about how happiness is the only logical pursuit.

[0]: [https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/06/08/happiness-is- the-...](https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2016/06/08/happiness-is-the-only- logical-pursuit/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I used to work in investment, and I sometimes did cash-flow modelling for individuals...even within industry, the work is often woefully inadequate. I can't see the FIRE crowd getting this right (every FIRE person I have talked to seems mildly delusional).

Usually the "model" is some bogus Excel projection of historical volatility and returns into the future. That is nowhere near enough.

The quantitative mistake is not looking at returns as a random process (i.e. not ending up with a monte carlo sim with your assumptions, not modelling returns/volatility/etc. as random processes, if doing that then not using non- parametric models, if doing that then not using enough data, etc.).

The biggest practical mistake is understating the effect of volatility. Once you start or plan to take income, volatility becomes very important. Thinking that you can ride out volatility, the de jure thinking today, exposes you to intolerable risk (usually at the point where you are not able to bear that risk i.e. when you can't generate income anymore).

The aim of any retirement planning should be robustness. There is some kind of insane irony (the financial world seems to specialise in this) that people are attempting to invest in a way that requires maximum robustness but are often using strategies that produce totally non-robust returns (i.e. 100% equity ETFs).

If you are going to try this: stop and consider whether you really understand what you are doing.

<comment><USER17> Between the Trinity study, FIRECalc, and a healthy discussion about bond tents - plenty of folks are taking volatility seriously.

For every blogger trying to "retire" on $300k there's another person targeting a 3.5% SWR with a well balanced portfolio, quietly waiting out the boring middle. The former gets more press but I suspect the latter will survive the next downturn just fine.

<comment><USER16> If you are using a fixed withdrawal rate, you don't know what you are doing. Sorry, it is just that simple.

<comment><USER17> Let's take for granted that the Trinity study is wrong, like you claim. What are you advocating for? Spending flexibility? The Golden Butterfly portfolio? Bitcoin?

<comment><USER16> Statistics. Logic. Reason.

<comment><USER17> What an awful answer

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Fun fact: In Turkey People used to retire by 38 if they start working at 18 years old. There were 20 years of work requirement, no minimum age requirement.

Now ageism is rampant, finding a job after 30 gets hard, after 40 very hard, after 50 almost impossible and millions of people who "came to age" after that ridiculous system was fixed demand retirement at their 40's. No one questions if putting age limit to vacancies are O.K., they demand their tight to retire at 40(now most approach their 50s though, as this is going on for many years).

I had a friend at high school whose father retired at 40 but he was well off by that time(had his own business), so he simply handed his ATM card to his son to use. It felt quite unfair since my parents were set to retire after their 60s, working their asses because they are immigrants and did not catch the window for sweet retirement. It's different than having a friend with rich parents.

In my mind, retirement should happen about the same age for every healthy person. Otherwise, it creates morale issues because the whole retirement concept is based on the idea that people age. When you do not retire due to age, you are simply a leech on society. It is different from being rich, rich people continue to contribute to society until they retire.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think the principle of living frugally and investing what you earn is admirable. To my eye it isn't particularly innovative, but rather articulates a strategy, a set of values that many people have either lost touch with or not been exposed to.

You can live on investments alone, and they probably don't need to be as much as you think.

However, I associate those ideas in the US with northeast upper-middle class culture ... which also tends to have a "Puritan work ethic" ... that work is good in itself.

This notion that work isn't intrinsically valuable or worthwhile is interesting.

I wonder if any of the people doing this end up being surprised to find that they miss working, years later.

I was just sitting in a plane thing about this ...

I mean, you're going to die no matter what. You are going to have suffering and pain, almost certainly in your life.

Is not-working going to save you from that?

I totally get it is someone is an aspiring screenwriter or what have you, but what if your idea of the good life is "hanging out?" Will you get bored and depressed with all this time on your hands?

<comment><USER20> A big part of it is not needing to work. There is a lot of security in knowing that you can just walk away from a bad situation, and take your time getting another job. Also, people who retire early don't just sit around watching TV all day, many of them actually start up something on the side. For example, Mr. Money Mustache is a blogger, which happens to generate income.

The difference is that you don't work for income, you work to give yourself something to do. Some people hang out their hat as a DJ, or do some teaching, but they also take enough time to travel or do other hobby type tasks that they wouldn't have time for otherwise with a 9-5.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Look up FatFIRE, I think people on HN would be more aligned with that philosophy rather than regular FIRE.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is doable, even with kids. Especially in the software industry. I like that this article mentions setting a wealth target based on expenses, not current income. It's all about having a life that isn't financially expensive. If you can reduce expenses by $10K a year (less than $1K a month), that's an additional $285,714 that doesn't need to be saved up (10000/0.035, assuming 3.5% withdrawal rate).

We have two kids. They go to public school. We live in a modest 4 br house that is less than 2,000 sqft, in the DC metro. Housing is $1,700 a month (including county/city taxes and insurance). Food for 4 is $1,000 to $1,500, but this can vary a lot depending on preferences. School costs $0 since it is public school. Phone bill is $35/month for two lines since we prepay for a year and use an MVNO. This is for 8gb on one line and 2gb on the other. The phones themselves are modest and paid off (pixel 2). Electricity is about $150/month, natural gas about $100 a month, water $77. Transportation (one car for the whole family, no commute) averages about $200/month long-term, including car, maintenance, gas, insurance. Going with one car and having no commute makes a big difference. We live in an area that is walkable/bikeable. Internet is $90/month for 250/12.

Based on the Maryland health connection gov website, if we can keep our expenses, and therefore income, at or below $60,000 a year, then there is a $380/month/adult credit for health insurance purchased from the government exchange. At this income level, children can qualify for MCHP:

"MCHP Premium is low-cost health insurance coverage for higher-income children up to age 19 between 200% FPL and 300% FPL. MCHP Premium provides access to health insurance coverage for eligible uninsured children through the Maryland Managed Care Program, HealthChoice, for a modest monthly premium."

The MCHP premium premium for families between 250-300% FPL: $70 per month (per family, not per-child).

For the adults, the KP MD Bronze 6200/20%/HSA/Dental plan is $179/month/adult in this scenario, after the $380 credit. The plan is HSA-compatible, so we can build tax-free medical money in an HSA and keep that long-term, invested in stocks. The out-of-pocket max is $13,100, so we don't go broke.

Capital gains taxes are very low to non-existant. Married, filing joint, can realize $78,750 a year at 0% federal rate. The sum of all the expenses above (housing, food, utilities, health insurance, transportation, education) is $48,336. Bump that up to, say $55K or $60K to allow for additional discretionary spending, and that is:

$1,571,428 to $1,714,285 at a 3.5% withdraw rate. That's with no additional income generation at all. This is in the DC metro area, in Maryland, which is definitely a higher cost of living area. It's definitely not absurd like SF or some other places. There are lots of great tech jobs in area. Even Amazon HQ2 is not far.

There's one notable omission: college. Personally, I got my GED when I was 16 and did not pursue a degree. No college debt. Due to working my way up through companies, first small, then larger, I was able to not only build wealth, but pay off my wife's college debt (and she doesn't work; she takes care of the kids).

So, this can definitely be done. It takes some sacrifice to build up the wealth, but no a total sacrifice. Spending money and enjoying life are two distinct things. Spending money is not a prerequisite for enjoying life. Plus, the difference between spending just a little over one's means, and a little under one's means is monumental --one leads to wealth, the other to poverty. I personally do not at all feel like I missed out in my 20's or envy any of my peers.

</comment><comment><USER23> Once this was called "a pension"

<comment><USER24> Pensions don't generally pay out mid-career, if I'm not mistaken. What's the relevance here?

<comment><USER25> Relevance being pensions allow for early retirement at 55 in some countries. Some pensions are time served such as the police so you can retire at 42 after 20 years on the force.

<comment><USER24> 55 is extremely different from 40,and "one specific job has an early pension" is pretty wildly different from claiming that early retirement is equivalent to pensions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Maybe this is just indoctrination from living in a capitalist society, but I'm not sure I'd like retirement. Or at least I'm not sure it'd make me happy. Sure I'd love to take short breaks, i.e. sabbaticals, but I'd ideally like to be working in some capacity on something meaningful.

And it does feel like this movement is all about delaying purpose until you have enough money. And having seen up close people who got a late start, it's not fantastic. For instance, take the dude who's trying to become a screenwriter in his 40's. He's gonna be around a bunch of 20 somethings, quite a few of whom have degrees in film, who are willing to stay up late, grind out screenplays and hustle like hell for a career in film. Will he do that?

<comment><USER27> It's a false dichotomy. There's no where in this "movement" that says "choose worse jobs now" or "avoid finding meaningful work now." Choosing to save money by shopping around on your insurance or buying last year's hot new gadget instead of this year's, or holding onto your car for a few extra years all can have a huge impact on your finances (particular if you minimize recurring costs and debt payments combined with investing - it becomes an avalanche.)

More so - the more money you have prepared for your future, the more flexibility you now have to choose the work you want to do. You can still get paid, but you also have a massive cushion and the power to say "no."

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> tldr: "no children"

</comment><comment><USER29> My research suggests Cash Flow is a better investment strategy - Based on personal experience, US$600K can control a residential real estate portfolio that pays $96K annual profit (after property manager, insurance, mortgage, etc.). To get the same at 5%, math suggests a $1.9M principal (minimum) is needed, invested in paper assets.

<comment><USER30> Do you have sources for that claim? I find shocked that 600k gets you 96k yearly. 16% returns are absolutely ridiculous for real estate, AFAIK

<comment><USER7> He left out the interest payments on the principal he can leverage with $600K.

Say your bank allows 3:1 leverage then $600K will get you 1.8 million for 2.4 million total to spend. In some places that's enough to get an 'octoplex', 8 flats in one building. Each of those can be let at $1000 -> 12K * 8 -> 96K. Now you need to pay interest, the current rates are 1.7% or so, say 30K annually, or about 1/3rd of your total income on the property.

Of course there is still the maintenance, the cost for managing the property, the inevitable non-paying renters and evictions as well as flats that are empty between tenants. But that's more or less the basics of it.

Depending on local conditions this scheme may be more or less profitable. The things to watch out for in a scheme like this is rising interest rates which will likely kill the market so you would not be able to sell. If you want to nail down the interest rate over a longer term then you'd have to expect a higher interest rate.

<comment><USER29> Correct in my experience! :)

And we rarely sell, instead we retain cash flow. We will "flip" a Single Family door via 1031 (US Tax Code) into our next 5-8 doors (after owning it for 4 or so years). But we expect to hold onto the other building, and those we acquire as we go, as this again is a subscription model - Cash flow.

"The market" (i.e. real estate appreciation) does not affect us so much over time, only when we do buy/sell.

And right now, US rates are again low...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Prototype based vs. class based inheritance - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/816071/prototype-based-vs-class-based-inheritance/816075#816075 <comment><USER2> See: <http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?ClassesPrototypesComparison>

In my experience, prototype-based OOP is less prone to the typical OOP over- analysis - if you just need one object that does something, _you just assemble it, that's it, problem solved_. Since the default stance isn't designing a generic class for all possible subtypes that exhibit related behavior and blah blah blah, there's less push toward overthinking things.

Prototype-based OOP is also well-suited to runtime modification, since the underlying implementation is usually simpler, but that's a distant second to the above benefit. And while prototypes are sometimes assumed to be less efficient than classes, look at the research from Self* - While some popular languages have poor implementations, it's not _inherently_ less efficient.

Also, I suspect prototypes integrate more smoothly with non-OOP code than classes, based on experience with Lua (which isn't strictly OOP, but typically uses prototypes). To some extent, this blurs with dynamic typing, though - there's only one statically typed + prototype-based OOP language I know of, Günther Blaschek's Omega (described in _Object-Oriented Programming With Prototypes_).

* <http://selflanguage.org/documentation/published/index.html> Some of the people involved later worked on the "JVM". Perhaps you've heard of it?

<comment><USER3> _In my experience, prototype-based OOP is less prone to the typical OOP over- analysis - if you just need one object that does something, you just assemble it, that's it, problem solved. Since the default stance isn't designing a generic class for all possible subtypes that exhibit related behavior and blah blah blah, there's less push toward overthinking things._

But that's not really a property of prototype languages - it's a property of duck typing. For example, Ruby - a non prototype language - can implement exactly the same idea. Take an instance of a class, and add a method specifically to that object - no problems. Critically, the thing that makes this possible is the fact that evaluation of the existence of the method is made at call time, not at compile time.

<comment><USER2> Dynamic and duck typing does help quite a bit there, but I think the default stance of prototypes rather than classes also makes a difference.

The way I write object-centric code in Lua feels very different from in Python, even though both languages are dynamically typed (and otherwise fairly similar). It probably has to do with conventions / what's "Pythonic". I haven't used Ruby enough to comment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Some thoughts:

Given a sufficiently flexible and late-bound class system (like Smalltalk's), the differences between prototypes and classes can blur.

But in general I would say that it is easier to build classes on top of prototype systems than vice versa, which is one argument for prototypes.

All prototype implementations aren't the same, though, any more than Smalltalk and C++ both have the same class systems! Javascript and Self are quite different in some ways, especially when it comes to delegation (ie inheritance) and iolanguage and research such as Kevo are different again.

Despite the first answer to the linked question, I don't think that either class based or prototype based languages are easier to write a VM for.

What attracts me most is that prototype systems are conceptually simpler in an Occam's Razor sort of way. Instead of needing two concepts: classes and instances, we only need one: objects.

<comment><USER5> > What attracts me most is that prototype systems are conceptually simpler in > an Occam's Razor sort of way.

That's true, but I find you end up having to make the difference. Yes, prototype inheritance is conceptually simpler but in practice it's more complex. In JavaScript, for example, OO code tends to be harder to follow and includes more boilerplate code. You have to make up for the simplicity of the platform in order to get your work done. In more traditional OO languages, inheritance might be more limited but it's also more straight forward and easier to implement, calling parent class methods is build in, and the "this" reference works consistently.

<comment><USER6> JavaScript has the worst form of prototype inheritance I've ever seen. All the boilerplate code is not the fault of prototypes, but of JS. Also JS prototypes are insanely limited. You can't have multiple delegates and you can't change delegates at runtime. JavaScript's inheritance actually smells like some broken state between class based inheritance and prototypes. It has none of the advantages of either and combines the disadvantages of both. I'll make a longer blog post explaining how prototypes are supposed to work and what their real advantages are. You'll see that JS inheritance is a huuuge design failure and that nobody should ever mention prototypes and JavaScript in the same sentence.

<comment><USER5> I've studied other prototype languages (Io for example), but JavaScript is the only one that I use on a regular basis or in a professional capacity. I imagine for the vast majority of developers, JavaScript is their only introduction to prototype inheritance.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, and that's a real shame because those developers will get a really bad impression of prototypes (unless they only use one of the class emulation libs and never learn about prototypes, of course).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> this is what Guy Steele has to say. [http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive- html/m...](http://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive- html/msg03277.html)

<comment><USER8> One of the links from this page mentions this: <http://okmij.org/ftp/Scheme/oop-in-fp.txt>, where the author presents a simple example of implementing an object using closures:

      (define (make-point-2D x y)
        (define (get-x) x)
        (define (get-y) y)
        (define (set-x! new-x) (set! x new-x))
        (define (set-y! new-y) (set! y new-y))
        (lambda (selector . args)     ; a dispatcher
            (case selector
              ((get-x) (apply get-x args))
              ((get-y) (apply get-y args))
              ((set-x!) (apply set-x! args))
              ((set-y!) (apply set-y! args))
              (else (error "don't understand " selector)))))

Which is curiously similar to the canonical object implementation of SICP in section 3.2:

      (define (make-account balance)
        (define (withdraw amount)
          (if (>= balance amount)
              (begin (set! balance (- balance amount))
                     balance)
              "Insufficient funds"))
        (define (deposit amount)
          (set! balance (+ balance amount))
          balance)
        (define (dispatch m)
          (cond ((eq? m 'withdraw) withdraw)
                ((eq? m 'deposit) deposit)
                (else (error "Unknown request -- MAKE-ACCOUNT"
                             m))))
        dispatch)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's a useful comparative demo that makes this a little easier to differentiate: <http://alexsexton.com/inheritance/demo/>

</comment><comment><USER10> Can someone point to a non-trivial example using prototypal inheritance?</comment>


A collection of awesome TypeScript resources - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/semlinker/awesome-typescript <comment><USER2> Here's an alternate list with English resources: [https://github.com/dzharii/awesome- typescript](https://github.com/dzharii/awesome-typescript)

<comment><USER3> You should submit this as a new link.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My Chinese is a bit rusty.

<comment><USER5> :) we might have to learn Chinese soon</comment></comment>