The .NET Language Strategy - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/dotnet/2017/02/01/the-net-language-strategy/ <comment><USER3> I also want to commend Microsoft for continuing to support VB and not succumbing to the whims of sneering hipster programmers who consider it beneath contempt (see the second comment on that article for a good example, with a classy response from MS). VB is a thing that a lot of people rely on, and some even like, and doesn't deserve to be kicked to the curb.

<comment><USER4> I wrote my first non-toy lines of code in VB6, with a (pirate) copy of the IDE that I had to ask for as a request to a dude that sold cds in a public park.

At that time, I only had a C/C++ compiler that I didn't know how to use (because I had no internet and no standard library / STL docs). The MSDN library that was preloaded in the cd was an eye opener, and the visual components made it easy to experiment.

I would probably work in a restaurant today, if it wasn't for that cd.

<comment><USER5> I worked in a start-up straight out of college where I had done C/C++. We decided to try out this Visual Basic to see if we could get things done more quickly. VB 3.0. I was blown away by how quickly you could do things even though the language made it hard to organise any kind of structure when things got bigger. We did a lot of work in it and I assumed something like it was the future of programming.

Then the start up went bust and I was back to C++ before any newer version of VB came out. They really got reusable components right. I've never had an experience since where there is such a huge jump in productivity with a new technology.

<comment><USER6> I'm not really sure of the timeline, but I think Delphi pioneered the "reusable components" paradigm and VB was Microsoft's entry into the market.

<comment><USER7> Delphi came after VB3. VB3 had "custom controls" called VBX (Visual Basic Extensions), which were the reusable components. It was the precursor to OCX and ActiveX controls.

<comment><USER8> Yes - I migrated from VB -> Delphi - one of the big advantages at the time was you could compile a small executable that didn't require you to distribute several additional disks of vb runtime DLLs with your software.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So the big change there is to VB, right -- instead of being a language co- equal to C#, they're refocusing it to be beginner-focused, and are explicitly saying it won't have the same capabilities as C#.

I think that makes a lot of sense -- it was always weird to have two near- identical languages to choose from -- but at the same time, I wonder if VB.NET isn't already too complex to be an accessible language for beginner- programmers in the way that PHP or VB6 were.

<comment><USER10> I learned on VB.Net maybe ~15 years ago now, and back then all the english like 'end sub' and 'end if' really really helped me understand the code. Honestly languages that used brackets looked like voodoo to me at the time. Of course later when I understood that brackets were faster to write and conveyed the structure just the same, I converted and became a sneering hipster.

<comment><USER11> I don't think anyone has ever typed _End If_ in visual studio. The VB IDE always had very proactive statement completion, that the C# IDE only recently matched. All you end up typing is "for i=1 to 10", press enter, not worrying about the casing and the IDE does the rest. To me the quality of the IDE makes 50% of the quality of a language and the VB.net IDE was superb.

<comment><USER12> tsk! :)

>> For I _as Int32_ = 1 to 10

I may be a VB.NET stalwart, but I have evolved to ensure my code is clean and properly declared, and I wish that all my VB.NET colleagues had done the same, then maybe it still wouldn't be seen as C# ugly step-sibling.

Why don't I switch to C# ?

1) I don't code professionally these days, only as a hobby.

2) I can't see the point of having to put semi-colons at the end of lines, when you immediately follow them with CRLF anyway.

3) Curly brackets are too easy to miss in the middle of code for these old eyes.

Right now, there's almost no app that's written in C# that can't also be written in VB.NET.

<comment><USER11> I agree with your points except for

      For i as Int32 = 1 to 10

There is nothing loose or unambiguous about type inference

      Dim i = 10

is absolutely unambiguous, strongly typed and elegant. The For i = 1 to 10 is just doing the same in a loop.

<comment><USER12> I think I had gotten stung previously with VB6s loose typing (everything as a generic object unless declared otherwise), so when I switched to VB.NET I made a point of declaring everything (and still do).

<comment><USER11> yeah it took me a while to get rid of bad VB6 habits too. Hungarian notation, specifying byval in front of every arguments in a function, not relying on type inference, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Good on Microsoft for writing about their strategy in such a clear, concise way. More of this style of writing, please, Microsoft! C# is, indeed, a real treat. I've been in love with it since 2001 and that shows no signs of changing any time soon.

<comment><USER10> Honestly I wish decent transpilers existed in life so I need never use another language.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's nice to see their strong continuing support for F#. I'm no longer in the .NET ecosystem but when I was learning F# and using it day to day was some of the most enjoyable paid programming I've done

<comment><USER15> I wouldn't call it strong continuing support. F#'s been a second class citizen both in resources given and marketing support. Community effort is great, but as long as MS pushes C# as the flagship language instead of giving it the equal-or-lesser footing it deserves, F# can't truly pull ahead.

It's good to see C# catching up with the past decades of language research. Maybe it's MS's DNA - they're still heavily pushing C++.

Tooling is the only real reason to ever use C# over F# - C# just doesn't do much (anything?) better. That, and legacy/enterprisey dev.

Heck, C# 7's tuple support is exactly what F# used to do, but then capitulated to MS's idea of making System.Tuple, a reference (heap allocated) type. Now in C# 7 since they finally got around to being a bit serious, they implement a new value-type tuple.

I guess we should be happy for any F# support we get. And indeed, tooling for functional languages is poor in general, so F# certainly leads...

<comment><USER16> You're seeing us strike a balance here. As I point out in the post, there are millions of C# developers, and tens of thousands of F# developers.

However, we think F# has awesome growth potential, and is great for .NET in general. So while we can't defend spending the same resources on it as we do on C#, we want to do what it takes to nurture it and keep it healthy and growing.

Being on the inside at Microsoft over the past years, it's been great to see more and more of the organization think of F# as part of the family.

<comment><USER17> In my opinion Microsoft should focus more on base tools for F#, such as Roslyn, integration with dotnet core, etc.

Integration with Visual Studio is nice, but if the language is to be adopted in hacker circles, without major Microsoft investment, it needs to provide very solid and flexible tools on top of which the community can build awesome things.

Example of small things Microsoft can help with: as far as I can see Nuclide doesn't work with dotnet core (only Mono). Throwing 1-2 devs that way would pay good dividends, in my opinion.

<comment><USER18> > Example of small things Microsoft can help with: as far as I can see Nuclide > doesn't work with dotnet core (only Mono). Throwing 1-2 devs that way would > pay good dividends, in my opinion.

I don't know anything about Nuclide, but if they want to work with dotnet core, they should look into working with omnisharp-roslyn[0]. VS Code[1] and Atom[2] both have extensions that work with it.

> In my opinion Microsoft should focus more on base tools for F#, such as > Roslyn, integration with dotnet core, etc.

I think there's already work underway for F# support for dotnet core[6].

As far as F# support for editors go, have a look at ionide[4]. They only have extensions for VS Code and Atom at the moment.

> Integration with Visual Studio is nice, but if the language is to be adopted > in hacker circles, without major Microsoft investment, it needs to provide > very solid and flexible tools on top of which the community can build > awesome things.

Have you seen omnisharp[5]? If so, what's missing from that?

[0] [https://github.com/OmniSharp/omnisharp- roslyn](https://github.com/OmniSharp/omnisharp-roslyn)

[1] [https://github.com/OmniSharp/omnisharp- vscode](https://github.com/OmniSharp/omnisharp-vscode)

[2] [https://github.com/OmniSharp/omnisharp- atom](https://github.com/OmniSharp/omnisharp-atom)

[3] [https://github.com/Microsoft/language-server- protocol](https://github.com/Microsoft/language-server-protocol)

[4] [http://ionide.io/](http://ionide.io/)

[5] [http://www.omnisharp.net/](http://www.omnisharp.net/)

[6] [https://github.com/dotnet/netcorecli- fsc](https://github.com/dotnet/netcorecli-fsc)

<comment><USER19> About F# and .NET Core, you can read more info (usage/bugs/workaround) in the wiki [https://github.com/dotnet/netcorecli- fsc/wiki/](https://github.com/dotnet/netcorecli-fsc/wiki/)

The only ide who support f# and .net core is VSCode (with Ionide extension who add f# support)

see

\- [https://github.com/dotnet/netcorecli-fsc/wiki/.NET-Core- SDK-...](https://github.com/dotnet/netcorecli-fsc/wiki/.NET-Core-SDK-preview2) for LTS of .net core 1.0 (project.json)

\- [https://github.com/dotnet/netcorecli-fsc/wiki/.NET-Core- SDK-...](https://github.com/dotnet/netcorecli-fsc/wiki/.NET-Core-SDK-preview4) for msbuild based (latest bits)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's worth mentioning that another reason C# is popular is because of the strong commitment to backwards compatibility. I can write something in C# and be fairly confident that it will still work a decade from now. That kind of reliability makes me willing to invest significant capital into C# development.

<comment><USER21> How much cruft is in the language because of backwards compatibility?

Java couldn't do generics right, for example, because they didn't want to break compatibility. C# seems to be adding a lot of improvements, but would it be better if they could break compatibility?

<comment><USER10> Probably the big one is non-nullable types [1], aka 'The Billion Dollar Mistake', which would break everything.

[1] [https://gist.github.com/olmobrutall/31d2abafe0b21b017d56](https://gist.github.com/olmobrutall/31d2abafe0b21b017d56)

<comment><USER22> If that is to be done, there needs to be some legacy settings for the compiler. I'll happily, trade inconvience for the ability to completely abolish null from my code. I already use a Maybe pattern to avoid returning null, but I cannot avoid checking for null because it's so ingrained in the standard lib.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Again about F#:

\- F# is poor for relational databases. (Also, I try several ORM-ish/type providers but only "work" for sql server, and in windows). \- F# is poor for web projects and \- F# is poor for mobile development.

I'm sticking with F# because I'm that much against C-based syntax, not because I logically noted that C# is the only language that truly matters in .NET and I waste more time I wish to trying to solve everything with F#. Also, I'm a solo developer.

BTW, I use python, F#, swift, obj-c, delphi and have used Visual FoxPro and others languages that are smaller and expected to have limited support. Among all of this, F# is the one that cause more trouble (because tooling and ecosystem).

But is just a joy when things work. And the _massive reduction_ in code pay for it. It only need some love to polish around the edges.

<comment><USER24> I am curious whether you think F# is poor as a language for web/mobile development, or is it the F# tooling for such development that is lacking?

<comment><USER19> well, some options for mobile

\- xamarin works with f# and support it: [https://developer.xamarin.com/guides/cross- platform/fsharp/f...](https://developer.xamarin.com/guides/cross- platform/fsharp/fsharp_support_overview/)

\- use react native (with fable to transpile f# -> js): [https://github.com/fable-compiler/fable-react_native- demo](https://github.com/fable-compiler/fable-react_native-demo)

for web you can use:

\- suave ([http://suave.io](http://suave.io))

\- aspnet core (or aspnet core mvc)

both works with .NET, .NET Core and Mono

<comment><USER23> I'm aware of all that options, and have tested them. In fact, I have tried to use xamarin+f# for mobile for a year.

Now is a better (even have F# templates!) but is clearly a second class citizen.

\--

Is not the case of Core that F# integration is black magic, or this has changed in last release? All apis work now for F#? For web I try like 6 months ago and only suave was more or less usable (however, is hard to find how solve some stuff. NOTHING (in the open source options I test) is close to Flask/django in this case, and asp.net was sub-par when I test it.)

\--

I also agree that F# need more push from MS. My complaints, like much others, are about things that just need more polish and tooling - and if it get more competitive in performance with C#, better -. So I think is good to see this .NET strategy and think F# have a good future, to the point that F# _is the only reason_ I come back to .NET.

Is only, I wish not just a good future. I want a AMAZING future!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Seeing as this is a comment thread all about VB, an anecdote:

A few weeks ago, I decided to convert the 300 or data CDs and DVDs to ISOs - there's no point keeping large stacks of discs around these days - <USER2> now that most OSs allow you to natively mount ISOs as virtual drives.

I wanted a quick and easy one-click ISO creator (for Windows), so hunted online for one, and couldn't find a good free one, so turned to Visual Studio to knock up my own utility (as I tend to do often).

Not wanting to waste too much time on this (after all it's a one-time ripping project) I found some C# and VB.NET partial code examples of how to stream the data byte by byte off the disc, and into an ISO file.

Try as I might, I just could not get the code to work. Again not wanting to waste too much time, I remembered I'd also seen some VB6 code snippets during my searches.

I fired up a VM that has VB6 installed (as I never use VB6 anymore), and threw in the snippets, and 10 minutes later I had a rough cut of the utility ripping it's first disc to an ISO.

People are very quick to decry older technologies, but if they still work, and take less time to use, then where's the harm?

Screenshot of the util (that happily converted over 300 random data discs over the space of a few days, without error):

[http://www.jaruzel.com/files/dvd-to- iso.jpg](http://www.jaruzel.com/files/dvd-to-iso.jpg)

<comment><USER25> I agree with you. If I remember correctly there is also a x86 debugger written in VB. And I claim that those who write C++ by using all the "boost" they can in fact just use too much energy to write VB-style in C++ (or Python style, or Java style). And once they achieve that, having a separate allocation for everything, reference counting etc. even the performance converges, once the allocation patterns are similar.

All that being said, for the task you needed, have you seen ImgBurn? It's a native application, written in Delphi. There's a button "create the image file from disc."

[http://imgburn.com/index.php?act=screenshots](http://imgburn.com/index.php?act=screenshots)

<comment><USER12> I have ImgBurn installed, and use it a lot, but i needed the 'play a sound when done' and 'eject when done' features - as they really help with bulk rips if you are doing something else at the same time.

I also know from experience, that the simpler the UI, the faster repetitive bulk tasks become - years ago I wrote something similar for Audio CDs when I was ripping my (at the time) 500+ music CD collection.

<comment><USER25> > but i needed the 'play a sound when done' and 'eject when done'

I believed both are present in ImgBurn, see Settings/Read/Page 2 "batch mode: eject tray before next read" and Settings/Sounds "Play sound after read"?

Wouldn't you in ImgBurn just have to put the next disc once the previous is finished, it would even detect when you close the tray and continue automatically with the automatic name, you wouldn't have to click anywhere in the GUI?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It's unlikely, but it would be great if Microsoft would take ownership of the .Net port of Clojure. If there are two official object-oriented languages in the .Net stable; C# and VB.NET, why not two official functional as well; F# and Clojure?

Given Arcadia, the Clojure bridge to Unity, and Microsoft's interest in Unity via its Unity Tools, there might be some synergy there.

<comment><USER27> C# and vb.Net are not so much two languages as they are two grammars for the same language. Their ASTs are practically equivalent, bar some minor vb idiosyncrasies, holdouts from the VB6 days. I would be surprised if there were any organizational overhead to speak of for MS in maintaining the two.

Clojure and F# are fundamentally, semantically different.

(not arguing for or against, just giving some background)

<comment><USER28> _I would be surprised if there were any organizational overhead to speak of for MS in maintaining the two._

I sure wouldn't, because I worked on the VB.NET compiler team back in 2008-2009, and "organizational overhead" was pretty much the whole game. The VB and C# compilers were completely separate codebases, managed by parallel but non-overlapping teams of engineers. We never touched the C# compiler's codebase, and the C# people never touched VB. (I did once read through a piece of the C# compiler source code, to see how they'd implemented a feature I was supposed to be reimplementing for VB, so I could be sure to use the same semantics: but that was it.)

We had lots of meetings, though. Oh, god, so many meetings. _So much_ time burned keeping all those parallel projects in sync. Whatever commonality the languages have occurs through endless soul-crushing hours of almost-pointless meetings sorting out how these two separate pieces of software are both going to be modified to do pretty much the same thing, with almost exactly the same syntax. Every new feature had to be designed twice over, implemented twice over, tested twice over, and documented twice over. They may look like twin languages, but the illusion is maintained via massive, ongoing investment of sheer brute force man-hours.

Maybe things have changed since I was there, but it's really difficult to imagine how that could happen. The VB compiler was effectively legacy code, a horrible creaky mess of ancient patched-together bullshit, and nobody wanted to touch it any more than necessary for fear of breaking something. Refactoring was totally out of the question. I cannot imagine an organization as sclerotic as devdiv managing to rally the effort it would take to rewrite it - safely! - such that the VB and C# codebases could be combined far enough that they would no longer need to have a separate VB compiler team.

<comment><USER29> This is one of the most fascinating "how the sausage is made" posts I've read on HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> More love for F# please.

<comment><USER30> It is coming!

We love F# and it continues to be both an inspiration to other languages at Microsoft, as well as API developers.

<comment><USER31> this would be great, with more and more people learning about functional programming techniques, C# with a functional leaning is really nothing compared to F# with support for OO. It's like the premium language from MS but feels not so loved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32>
       I met a programmer from an antique land
       Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of code
       Stand in Redmond. Near them, on the sand,
       Half sunk, a shattered language lies, whose IDE,
       And DLLs, and ActiveX controls,
       Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
       Which drive market share, stamped on these lifeless things,
       The server that mocked them and the client that fed:

       And on the retail box these words appear:
       'My name is VISUAL BASIC, king of kings:
       Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
       Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
       Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
       The lone and level sands stretch far away.

</comment><comment><USER33> Cool to read.. though still somewhat disappointed that DLR languages were pretty much left to die, and the JavaScript DLR implementation stagnated.

<comment><USER34> Bring back IronPython!

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> F# is the best #

</comment><comment><USER36> .Net language strategy is to have no long term strategy. They just react to the market, and don't care that much about anything else. VB6 was a great eco- system, had most developers in the late 1990s yet they managed to completely fuck it up. dotNet and it's VB.Net was a bad joke until 2003, and after years of announcing and hot air it was incompatible, and the Wizard to convert was a Lite version from a third party vendor. Many stayed VB6 and changed to the web, or also also looked at Java alternative C#. But the RAD development is a day of the past. Nowadays building a UI app is certainly more effort than in VB6 days. Anyway, nowadays web apps and Android and iOS are in, WinPhone is dead and desktop apps are out.

<comment><USER37> To be fair a lot of the VB6 ecosystem was showing its age in terms of text encoding support etc. It is the Python2.7 of Visual Basic.

<comment><USER38> As a former VB6 programmer I'd say VB6 is the PHP of Visual Basic!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Is PowerShell not considered a first-class .NET language?

I thought it was on deck to take over default Windows shell/scripting status from hellish Batch

<comment><USER40> I wish we just had c# in a script form instead of powershell

<comment><USER41> There is this: [http://scriptcs.net/](http://scriptcs.net/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> 2017 type classes, 2018 Higher minded types ;)

Both going in at the same time would be better

<comment><USER43> You can almost do this in C# now [1]. It's ad-hoc polymorphism rather than full on type-classes, but it does facilitate generic programming in a way that I've not seen used in anger before.

For example, here's a definition of a super generic function that takes a functor of string and maps it to a functor of int.

        public static FB ParseInts<Functor, FA, FB>(FA input)
            where Functor : struct, Functor<FA, FB, string, int> =>
            default(Functor).Map(input, Int32.Parse);

The secret to it working is the constraint that constrains Functor generic argument to be a struct and a Functor<FA, FB, string, int>. The struct bit means I can call default(Functor) and get a valid reference back (because structs can't be null).

I can then call it with a List:

        var list = List("100", "50", "25");

        Lst<int> res1 = ParseInts<FLst<string, int>, Lst<string>, Lst<int>>(list);

Or an Option:

        Option<int> res2 = ParseInts<FOption<string, int>, Option<string>, Option<int>>(opt);

And it will happily map the bound values.

FLst and FOption are essentially the 'class instances'. Functor is the 'type class', it's just a C# interface [2]:

        public interface Functor<FA, FB, A, B>
        {
            FB Map(FA ma, Func<A, B> f);
        }

The key thing is that 'this' won't be used, so the first argument is the value to be mapped.

FLst looks like this [3]:

        public struct FLst<A, B> : Functor<Lst<A>, Lst<B>, A, B>
        {
            public Lst<B> Map(Lst<A> ma, Func<A, B> f) =>
                ma.Map(f);
        }

And FOption like so [4]:

        public struct FOption<A, B> :
            Functor<Option<A>, Option<B>, A, B>,
            BiFunctor<Option<A>, Option<B>, Unit, A, B>
        {
            public Option<B> BiMap(Option<A> ma, Func<Unit, B> fa, Func<A, B> fb) =>
                ma.IsNone
                    ? fa == null
                        ? Option<B>.None
                        : fa(unit)
                    : fb == null
                        ? Option<B>.None
                        : fb(ma.Value);

            public Option<B> Map(Option<A> ma, Func<A, B> f) =>
                ma.IsSome && f != null
                    ? Optional(f(ma.Value))
                    : None;
        }

As you can probably tell, the amount of clutter from specifying generic type- parameters that the compiler could (relatively) easily work out on its own, is pretty annoying. Which limits it's usefulness somewhat. But if you want to write truly generic code, it's doable (with some caveats of course. you'll notice that the Functor type isn't quite as strict say the definition in Haskell).

I'm currently updating my language-ext project to add type-classes [5] and class-instances [6], in the hope that the C# team will take pity on me and make this technique a language feature (it's been seriously turning my head inside out trying to make it work with higher-order types like monads).

This is already being investigated by some Roslyn team members [7]. I figured this feature was unlikely to move seriously in the near term without some indication of real world need.

[1] [https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/blob/type- classes/Lan...](https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/blob/type- classes/LanguageExt.Tests/TypeClassFunctor.cs#L73)

[2] [https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/blob/type- classes/Lan...](https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/blob/type- classes/LanguageExt.Core/TypeClasses/Functor/Functor.cs)

[3] [https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/blob/type- classes/Lan...](https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/blob/type- classes/LanguageExt.Core/ClassInstances/Functor/FLst.cs)

[4] [https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/blob/type- classes/Lan...](https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/blob/type- classes/LanguageExt.Core/ClassInstances/Functor/FOption.cs)

[5] [https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/tree/type- classes/Lan...](https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/tree/type- classes/LanguageExt.Core/TypeClasses)

[6] [https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/tree/type- classes/Lan...](https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/tree/type- classes/LanguageExt.Core/ClassInstances)

[7] [https://github.com/MattWindsor91/roslyn/blob/master/concepts...](https://github.com/MattWindsor91/roslyn/blob/master/concepts/docs/concepts.md)

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> VB for me was the gateway to the modern .NET programming. Back in school, I've started with VB6 and moved to VB afterwards. The transition was somehow seamless and made me understand the .NET ecosystem better. When I was learning C# I had to first write my code in VB and then try to port it to C#. That was just my way of learning things. It happen to be useful since now I'm fluent in both when I need them.

</comment><comment><USER45> I guess C++/CLI doesn't count as a .NET language? Shame it gets so little attention, it's a fantastic interop language.

</comment><comment><USER37> I have been trying to read planning docs, github issues etc and I still can't find if my one pet feature is planned or requested for C#: proper exhaustive pattern matching for records/tuples.

Tuples, records, etc are all find and dandy, but what I want is propoer safety when adding a variant, otherwise they don't really help me reason about my code.

<comment><USER46> It didn't make C# 7. Will hopefully be in C# 8: [https://www.infoq.com/news/2016/05/csharp7-pattern- matching-...](https://www.infoq.com/news/2016/05/csharp7-pattern-matching- removed)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> The best thing Microsoft could do for .NET is give LinqPad away with every copy of Windows.

I'm hesitant to suggest they buy it out though.

<comment><USER48> Not sure LinqPad is the right way to go.

What I would like to see is a dedicated REPL application (likely based on the scripting dialect of C#) with IntelliSense and support for NuGet packages (if you want to have those features in LinqPad, you have to pay).

Kind of similar to Xamarin Workbooks, but better, and without all the "it's for documentation and inspecting applications" cruft.

<comment><USER49> Not a dedicated REPL app, but there's an 'interactive window' for c# in VS 2015, it has IntelliSense (but no NuGet support, which might be added in the future.) [https://github.com/dotnet/interactive- window](https://github.com/dotnet/interactive-window)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I hope Microsoft continues to support VB.NET. I don't know what I'd do without XML literals.

<comment><USER11> As a heavy VB user, XML literals is the one thing I never found useful. For serialisation, the XML serialiser is easier than doing things by hand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I would recommend Microsoft to name their environments and languages such that you can meaningfully search for them in Google. I could be wrong, but I can't imagine searching for ".net" or "f#" gives any useful results.

<comment><USER52> It seems perfectly fine: [https://www.google.co.uk/#q=f%23](https://www.google.co.uk/#q=f%23)

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Microsoft has been trying to kill Visual Basic since 2005. It's like a zombie. Credit to Microsoft for keeping customers and users of the language happy.

<comment><USER54> >"Microsoft has been trying to kill Visual Basic since 2005"

Where do you get that idea from?

Perhaps it's because of confusion over the name Visual Basic. Microsoft have deprecated VB, but not VB.NET. The name 'Visual Basic' has been applied to both, but they're not the same language. Microsoft's support for VB.NET is stronger than F#, and second only to C#.

<comment><USER53> I know the article was about VB.NET (successor) but I was referring to the predecessor.

[http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/](http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/)

[https://web.archive.org/web/20141110003154/http://www.tiobe....](https://web.archive.org/web/20141110003154/http://www.tiobe.com/content/paperinfo/tpci)

VB actually GREW in popularity in the last two years. By the way, VB is supported until 2024. That should be enough time to switch to VB.NET, right? :)

<comment><USER55> > VB actually GREW in popularity in the last two years.

Or people have been using the term "VB" to to refer to VB.NET as old-style VB falls out of the general consciousness, distorting Tiobe's web search engine based methodology for generating ratings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Pardon my confusion, but I thought that some time back Microsoft abandoned the effort to write all their stuff in managed code under .NET ..

<comment><USER57> Many of the built-in Windows 10 apps are written in C#.

<comment><USER58> So that now you have to wait until Calculator starts?

<comment><USER57> Opens instantly for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> [http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/](http://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/)

</comment><comment><USER60> I read this as "we don't really care about VB anymore, but we're contractually obliged to say that we do".

</comment><comment><USER61> >Strategy for Visual Basic

Not >Killing it with fire

Very disappointing.

<comment><USER62> Why are you disappointed? VB is not exactly javascript, meaning it's easy to avoid writing it if you try. And for that matter, what exactly is your complaint about VB?

</comment></comment><comment><USER63>
      > We will enable and encourage strong community participation in F# by continuing
      > to build the necessary infrastructure and tooling to complement community
      > contributions. We will make F# the best-tooled functional language on the
      > market, by improving the language and tooling experience, removing road blocks
      > for contributions, and addressing pain points to narrow the experience gap with
      > C# and VB. As new language features appear in C#, we will ensure that they also
      > interoperate well with F#. F# will continue to target platforms that are
      > important to its community.

Reading between the lines this says that further development of F# will be dropped. They're handing it over to the community for plausible deniability. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like a very sad day for functional programmers.

<comment><USER16> Hey, I didn't write anything between the lines! :-)

Don't worry: We're not "handing F# over to the community"! It always had a strong community participation, and continues to. It's a fabulous collaboration. This post is not an attempt to signal a change to our strategy for F#, and if anything should be read as a commitment to F#.

We're currently integrating F# more deeply with Roslyn, which should lead to an awesome bump in tooling quality.

<comment><USER63> Thank you and I apologize.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple is Reportedly going to launch macOS and iOS bug bounty and - <AUTHOR> https://9to5mac.com/2019/08/05/iphone-security-researchers-mac-bug-bounty/ <comment><USER2> Interesting. From the source article [1]:

> [...] they would essentially be "dev devices." Think of them as iPhones that > allow the user to do a lot more than they could on a traditionally locked- > down iPhone.

It sounds like Apple might provide vetted researchers with development-fused devices [2]. In an official capacity, these have only been mentioned once - during a Black Hat talk by Ivan Krstić [3].

[1] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/08/05/apple...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2019/08/05/apple- is-giving-out-hacker-friendly-iphones-plots-mac-bug-bounty-sources)

[2] [https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/7/18255509/apple-iphone- dev-...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/7/18255509/apple-iphone-dev-fused- stolen-prototype-switchboard-hack-vulnerability)

[3] [https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Krstic.p...](https://www.blackhat.com/docs/us-16/materials/us-16-Krstic.pdf)</comment>


Show HN: Fairbooks – Uber for authors, Spotify for readers - <AUTHOR> http://fairbooks.co?ref=hn <comment><USER2> Im interested in the topic of books so I went out of my way and enable javascript. Because your page otherwise shows nothing. And yet, I still see no explanation of what it is. Just some beautiful layout with fluff words.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the "beautiful layout", and I'm sorry about the javascript "problem". You can find more infos in our blog, at [http://fairbooks.co/blog](http://fairbooks.co/blog)

<comment><USER2> That gives me "Error 404 - Web app not found"</comment></comment></comment>


Competitor comparison pages - <AUTHOR> https://www.junction43.co/blog/comparative-marketing-why-you-need-competitor-comparison-pages <comment><USER3> Depends very largely on your industry. In enterprise, this is a terrible strategy as it leads you away from a discussion on value add to one largely centered around features and price. Deals that are focused on features and price tend to be harder to close and generate less revenue.

I'd question it for most industries actually - what you are tacitly acknowledging in the standard feature comparison page is that the features of the competition are equivalent to yours, but that you have a few additional ones. Usually people will in that situation go for the solution that does 80% of the job but is significantly cheaper.

Overwhelmingly the research shows that people buy on value add, not features, so this strategy is likely to force down your price for marginal gain. Also, the competitor pages tend to be a competitive paid search for a challenger in the market. Rare that you see this with organic.

<comment><USER4> What kind of "value" can not be specified as a feature? Whether it's a better SLA, expertise adapting the product to the customers needs, or anything else, those are just features which some clients may want, and others may not.

<comment><USER3> Value is expected value to the user minus total cost of ownership, and a value proposition is a promise of expected value to the user.

Products which sell for higher prices and avoid getting into 'feature/function' type battles are those that are able to make clear, measurable and defensible claims about the positive impact that they will have on people's lives.

These usually begin with a real pain point that the customer is experiencing with their current situation (to give an example of say, Dropbox, users having to email files to themselves and use USB drives, losing data as a result) and move to something more like 'Never lose a file again', or as they do at enterprise level talk of the costs and confusion of time wasted of legal departments emailing documents to each other.

Some of the HN crowd would love Dropbox to describe themselves as 'Distributed file storage and sync across Windows, Linux and Mac' but there are good reasons why they don't.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Competitor comparison? Most (SaaS) sites would benefit from stating - <USER2> and clearly - what features they offer and what are the benefits from those features. The whole "free trial" approach is a joke. My time, no one's time, is not free.

If you can't communicate the essence of your product to me [1] then I can only presume you don't know. That's not a good sign.

[1] Everyone is always asking "Why should I care?" if you don't care to answer that then I'm not going to care either.

</comment><comment><USER6> My suspicion is that if a marketing person passes this idea past their legal folks (especially in the litigious USofA) will likely get a fairly strong "nope" to having a 'competitor comparison' page.</comment>


We can't love Vending Machines until we gain free coffees from them - <AUTHOR> https://email@example.com/how-i-hacked-modern-vending-machines-43f4ae8decec <comment><USER2> Interesting, and here I thought vending machines are not that prone to hacking but of course, this is a newer model from what I see</comment>


Local Motors: collaborative car design, construction, and purchase - <AUTHOR> http://www.local-motors.com/ <comment><USER3> I spent some time in photoshop turning it into a sports car, and here is the result:

<http://i41.tinypic.com/30cc6cz.jpg>

For $50K people would buy it, wouldn't matter if it was powered by hampsters or a Supercharged V8.

Why? Because it would remind them of a baby Aston Martin. For engine choice I would probably use the engine out of the Chevrolet Camaro, GM is going bankrupt, so you can probably buy the engines on the cheap. And those engines are known for having a ton of potential. If GM doesn't work out, the 4.6L Ford would have to do. Of course can always follow in Lotus footsteps, keep the thing light, and use a supercharged/turbocharged 4 cylinder Honda/Toyota engine

Thats the thing with most cars, looks account for 90% of public interest. As long as you make a truly beautiful car, people will buy it, even if its a complete piece of crap.

<comment><USER4> I didn't see this before - your design has legs. I'm not big on the spoiler but otherwise looks to be a beautiful "baby aston" just as you said. But I do see Fisker, and I do see Aston - what about a new brand?

<comment><USER3> All cars look more or less the same in the sports car segment. Yes it sorta looks like an Aston, but there is enough difference for it to be its own car. As far as its own brand, most of the "branding" is done on the front end of the car. Shouldn't be that hard to design a brand new grille that is your own.

<comment><USER4> I think this could have enough uniqueness to stand on its own. You're right that the general shape of coupes or sedans is the same. But the long hood of the Fisker (and this RF coupe) is significant, and could be a brand indicator. The entire design language should be a brand indicator. I think GM had a similar thought: that a brand is a marque and a grille. They built the same cars w/ subtle changes and cannibalized Chevy and Pontiac. Not saying that is what you are doing here, but I am saying that a brand extends far beyond a grille.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> @vaksel Correction, I was distinguishing the 335 from the X6, we are using the 335d. As for why not the 335i, The carbon footprint is worse than the 335d given that it is 30% less fuel efficient. We are focused on changing the impact of vehicles and this is a good way to start. If we were going to go for a gas system, we are prepared to offer the LS series engines. More hp by 430 vs 300. I hear you on the "Performance, Reliability, Price...choose 2" That has been true in the past, but we do not think that applies when you compare our product+experience to others product. LM is "Design, Performance, Buildability, Price...choose 3 (green is a given)". Our customers want great looking and great performance, and don't want to be keyed in the parking lot for driving something whose mpg is measured in gpm vice mpg. If someone wants to race and get more than the 425lb-ft from the 335d, then they have the room to swap to an LS7 and to crank it up.

As for road legal, you are thinking of passenger car specs, this vehicle would classify as a mixed use vehicle in which case many of the FMVSS specs to which you are referring would not be applicable. Hope that helps.

As for buggies and dirtbikes occupying the market...I guess I am just not going to be able to convince you and should not try. But here goes. ATVs and Bikes are a TOTALLY different experience which require a much more fit rider and mindset. Buggies are not anywhere near as capable as "trucks" made for this landscape (to be precise, we are talking about 25mph max vs 70mph avg.) Then there is the subject of Pre-running. Much of it today is done either in sand-rail/types or in sup'd up F-150/types. Most races (i.e. Reno to Vegas) are pre-run in a column of cars where you are simply eating dust the entire day. So sandrails are miserable, go ask John Marking of Fox Racing. As for sup'd up F-150 types after spending in excess of 150K you will have 10 inches of wheel travel and a 7000lb vehicle that needs a 700+ hp engine to move it, and it becomes a veritable space race of mass and power. The whole point is that no company has ever seen the profit in making cars for this size market, but LM makes cars with a much lower break-even volume allowing us to access a much smaller niche. Even if you are right and the market is not as large as we would want, we will have invested less than $2MM in the build program, so we can afford to scrap it and move on to the next ...compare this to Fisker or Tesla (other startup car co.'s) that have each raised in excess of $200MM and only have 1 model competing in very VERY busy marget segments.

As for MA, you are at Y-Combinator and should understand this. Just because we are starting in MA doesn't mean that we are finishing here. We are in a small startup Ops Center. We have 2 letters of intent on properties in Phoenix and are already working on our MA model. When we started we had no idea that the community would like the performance off-road desert racing segment, so we couldn't predict where would be best to go...so we dove in and got started. Hindsight is 20-20, but I prefer to get going. After all, this is unlike any start-up in any typical venture type market, so some of the nimble ideas do not apply as well. We are building a car company in an intensely difficult time and are taking risks where we feel appropriate and necessary and taking them large. Where we do not need to take risk, we are intensely conservative. I also hope that this helps.

Again, I am so stoked that you care enough to dig and to answer. I really think that our community could use your insight...hope you will join www.local-motors.com

</comment><comment><USER5> @vaksel Correction, I was distinguishing the 335 from the X6, we are using the 335d. As for why not the 335i, The carbon footprint is worse than the 335d given that it is 30% less fuel efficient. We are focused on changing the impact of vehicles and this is a good way to start. If we were going to go for a gas system, we are prepared to offer the LS series engines. More hp by 430 vs 300. I hear you on the "Performance, Reliability, Price...choose 2" That has been true in the past, but we do not think that applies when you compare our product+experience to others product. LM is "Design, Performance, Buildability, Price...choose 3 (green is a given)". Our customers want great looking and great performance, and don't want to be keyed in the parking lot for driving something whose mpg is measured in gpm vice mpg. If someone wants to race and get more than the 425lb-ft from the 335d, then they have the room to swap to an LS7 and to crank it up.

As for road legal, you are thinking of passenger car specs, this vehicle would classify as a mixed use vehicle in which case many of the FMVSS specs to which you are referring would not be applicable. Hope that helps.

As for buggies and dirtbikes occupying the market...I guess I am just not going to be able to convince you and should not try. But here goes. ATVs and Bikes are a TOTALLY different experience which require a much more fit rider and mindset. Buggies are not anywhere near as capable as "trucks" made for this landscape (to be precise, we are talking about 25mph max vs 70mph avg.) Then there is the subject of Pre-running. Much of it today is done either in sand-rail/types or in sup'd up F-150/types. Most races (i.e. Reno to Vegas) are pre-run in a column of cars where you are simply eating dust the entire day. So sandrails are miserable, go ask John Marking of Fox Racing. As for sup'd up F-150 types after spending in excess of 150K you will have 10 inches of wheel travel and a 7000lb vehicle that needs a 700+ hp engine to move it, and it becomes a veritable space race of mass and power. The whole point is that no company has ever seen the profit in making cars for this size market, but LM makes cars with a much lower break-even volume allowing us to access a much smaller niche. Even if you are right and the market is not as large as we would want, we will have invested less than $2MM in the build program, so we can afford to scrap it and move on to the next ...compare this to Fisker or Tesla (other startup car co.'s) that have each raised in excess of $200MM and only have 1 model competing in very VERY busy marget segments.

As for MA, you are at Y-Combinator and should understand this. Just because we are starting in MA doesn't mean that we are finishing here. We are in a small startup Ops Center. We have 2 letters of intent on properties in Phoenix and are already working on our MA model. When we started we had no idea that the community would like the performance off-road desert racing segment, so we couldn't predict where would be best to go...so we dove in and got started. Hindsight is 20-20, but I prefer to get going. After all, this is unlike any start-up in any typical venture type market, so some of the nimble ideas do not apply as well. We are building a car company in an intensely difficult time and are taking risks where we feel appropriate and necessary and taking them large. Where we do not need to take risk, we are intensely conservative. I also hope that this helps.

Again, I am so stoked that you care enough to dig and to answer. I really think that our community could use your insight...hope you will join www.local-motors.com

</comment><comment><USER5> Correction, I was distinguishing the 335 from the X6, we are using the 335d. As for why not the 335i, The carbon footprint is worse than the 335d given that it is 30% less fuel efficient. We are focused on changing the impact of vehicles and this is a good way to start. If we were going to go for a gas system, we are prepared to offer the LS series engines. More hp by 430 vs 300. I hear you on the "Performance, Reliability, Price...choose 2" That has been true in the past, but we do not think that applies when you compare our product+experience to others product. LM is "Design, Performance, Buildability, Price...choose 3 (green is a given)". Our customers want great looking and great performance, and don't want to be keyed in the parking lot for driving something whose mpg is measured in gpm vice mpg. If someone wants to race and get more than the 425lb-ft from the 335d, then they have the room to swap to an LS7 and to crank it up.

As for road legal, you are thinking of passenger car specs, this vehicle would classify as a mixed use vehicle in which case many of the FMVSS specs to which you are referring would not be applicable. Hope that helps.

As for buggies and dirtbikes occupying the market...I guess I am just not going to be able to convince you and should not try. But here goes. ATVs and Bikes are a TOTALLY different experience which require a much more fit rider and mindset. Buggies are not anywhere near as capable as "trucks" made for this landscape (to be precise, we are talking about 25mph max vs 70mph avg.) Then there is the subject of Pre-running. Much of it today is done either in sand-rail/types or in sup'd up F-150/types. Most races (i.e. Reno to Vegas) are pre-run in a column of cars where you are simply eating dust the entire day. So sandrails are miserable, go ask John Marking of Fox Racing. As for sup'd up F-150 types after spending in excess of 150K you will have 10 inches of wheel travel and a 7000lb vehicle that needs a 700+ hp engine to move it, and it becomes a veritable space race of mass and power. The whole point is that no company has ever seen the profit in making cars for this size market, but LM makes cars with a much lower break-even volume allowing us to access a much smaller niche. Even if you are right and the market is not as large as we would want, we will have invested less than $2MM in the build program, so we can afford to scrap it and move on to the next ...compare this to Fisker or Tesla (other startup car co.'s) that have each raised in excess of $200MM and only have 1 model competing in very VERY busy marget segments.

As for MA, you are at Y-Combinator and should understand this. Just because we are starting in MA doesn't mean that we are finishing here. We are in a small startup Ops Center. We have 2 letters of intent on properties in Phoenix and are already working on our MA model. When we started we had no idea that the community would like the performance off-road desert racing segment, so we couldn't predict where would be best to go...so we dove in and got started. Hindsight is 20-20, but I prefer to get going. After all, this is unlike any start-up in any typical venture type market, so some of the nimble ideas do not apply as well. We are building a car company in an intensely difficult time and are taking risks where we feel appropriate and necessary and taking them large. Where we do not need to take risk, we are intensely conservative. I also hope that this helps.

Again, I am so stoked that you care enough to dig and to answer. I really think that our community could use your insight...hope you will join www.local-motors.com

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Lots of talk about GM recently, so I thought I'd post something about a really cool car company. I'm told that ~"At a design stage when GM has spent $10M, we've spent $10K"

<comment><USER4> Thanks for spreading the word, Ivan. The $10k is for the initial design and some design development based on community desires; this number does not include engineering and development. But all in all, the outcome is vastly lower cost to market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Doomed. Edit: Because it's ugly. I went and looked at more designs, most belong to the "Art Instruction Schools" aesthetic.

Because it's vaporware. Have they made 'one' yet? How do they intend to make the body? Fiberglass? That's the only thing they could possibly afford. If and only if they have access to a 5 axis CNC router and a CAM package to carve the plugs.

You won't be able to get it financed in the foreseeable future.

You will have to jump through unimaginable license hoops to register it yourself as a kit car.

<comment><USER4> Can't believe there are so many car guys here! This is awesome. The first production-ready prototype will be on the ground in late summer, and will be at SEMA in November. Production (meaning individual builds) will begin in the Fall of 2010.

Including the community & local Southwest enthusiasts in the design & build process was necessary for LM to know we were bringing a desirable vehicle to market. The "opensource" aspect gained a lot of discussion early on. Now that we have incorporated the community desires in the design & engineering, we have a lot of proving to do. This is an exciting year.

The body will be composite, panels on tubular welded steel spaceframe. We will use carbonfiber and thermaplastics for the panels.

Financing anything is not as easy as it use to be. Our expectations are adjusted accordingly - we only aim to build about 3,000 in the lifetime of the vehicle, and probably only a few hundred in the first few years.

Licensing as a kit car or custom vehicle isn't as hard as you might think - primarily because the engine and other parts are OEM.

Thanks for the humbling, blunt review! Love it or hate it, at least the Rally Fighter isn't like everything else on the road. The pool of sameness can become monotonous.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's bold, audacious, visionary and will most likely fail. I love it! Now if only they could find a way to recruit great engineers to do the heavy lifting to actually engineer and manufacture these vehicles. Kind of reminds me of Cambrian House - only harder because it is hardware. It might makes sense if they sold virtual cars, but as for actually producing vehicles in any volume I think it is far fetched.

<comment><USER4> We are building a community of engineers to work alongside the community of designers at local-motors.com. We already had one "Parts-Bin" competition to design the Rally Fighter side vent; the community chose the winner - <USER2> cohesive, functional and low-cost side-vent. As the community grows we will undertake more challenges in the engineering arena.

After the LM community & team fully develop each vehicle, some building occurs in a centralized location (like chassis welding, etc.) Then each customer joins LM experts in the Local Micro-Factory (we will build micro-factories in regions across the US, hence the "Local" :)) for the build experience & training. Vehicles are built Just-In-Time by each individual customer. This project takes two short weekends.

If you have an LM vehicle, you have a more powerful understanding of your vehicle - because you built it.

Seems crazy to crowdsource such a large physical product. But mostly we are crowdsourcing desire and ideas so that we can build only desirable cars. Local Motors has to make many decisions independently in order to make it to market in an efficient, cost-effective manner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> wow 50K for such an ugly kit car? And thats only an estimate, we all know how car companies stick to estimates, thing will probably cost 75K when everything is said and done.

And they are using a Diesel to power it? Why? Hardly something that I would call a car of my dreams. Also notice how high the center of gravity is. Thing will probably tip over at the first corner on the highway.

There is a reason Tesla's first vehicle was a sports car, because thats the one car segment where people aren't weary of spending a ton of money. And a company can prove itself in a competitive market.

If I were going to spend a ton of money on a kit car, I'd spend $28K on an Ultima GTR/Can-Am. Its a lot cheaper, and you get a lot more bang for your buck. And even if you don't know how to work on cars, it'll cost you like 10K to get it put together. So it'll still be cheaper than their estimated price

<comment><USER4> It's not for everyone, that is for certain! Where are you from, vaksel? Since you seem to have solid opinions on the type of vehicle you would like to drive (you mentioned type of vehicle, price, and powertrain) we would love for you to join the Local-Motors.com community and guide the vehicle choice process. This is what it's all about!

The Rally Fighter is certainly not "all purpose" and does not satisfy my craving for a race car either. For off-roaders who either want to get into desert racing, or already do it, the vehicle makes sense - in some ways, maybe more sense than anything else on the market. And the idea of building it alongside an expert makes sense as well; if you are going to be out in the middle of nowhere and driving hard, it's best if you know how to take care of your vehicle yourself. Even if it just means changing a tire or building confidence in understanding the vehicle limitations, this is a cool experience for those who desire it. Again, not for everyone. And that's the point. The Local Motors experience is for the crazed car enthusiast - seems everyone knows one or two.

Electric makes great sense for some places and I'm certain that Lm will build an EV sooner than later; but for desert racing I think clean diesel is best. The choice of powertrain is based on geographic availability of alternative fuel sources, as well as use of the vehicle. You can't race Baja w/ an EV. Where would you recharge on your 2k mile trek through Ensanada? As of yet, it's not feasible. Maybe in the future.

I think it's arguable as to whether or not Local Motors should have entered the market w/ a Tesla-like sports car. But when you think of Tesla, Ron Motors, Fisker and others, do you think the playing field is a bit full? Surely there is room for others to compete at that level, but we are not at that level. We are not going to make very many Rally Fighters, and they will not be available all over the country. This is niche.

We certainly have some proving to do but we are ready for the challenge! The format is viable, and so far the community is supportive of the Rally Fighter (and there is talk of an electric Boston Bullet). Hope to hear more of your thoughts.

Ariel

firstname.lastname@example.com

<comment><USER3> The thing is, offroaders like power like the rest of the gearheads, so engine choice is very important. Picking the BMW Diesel will pretty much mean that any mods the people do will cost them an arm and a leg. + I'm sure it's costing you a ton of money to use that particular engine.

Offroaders aren't the hippie type to care about environment or mileage, hell most of them are running catless, so the whole clean diesel seems to be targeting the wrong demographic.

And yes you should know how to take care of your vehicle, but thats the point, using the BMW engine pretty much means the thing will be an electronic nightmare, if these things are to be taken offroad, a person should be able to take it apart and put it together on a side of a road with nothing more than a socket wrench.

I wasn't really arguing for electric cars, I just meant that Tesla as a new company targeted the sports car market to test the idea, because the sports car market is the only market where people are willing to pay a premium, even for an untested product. Offroaders do too, but the segment is infinitely smaller.

It seems to me that the car is not built for the demographic you are targeting.

a) Design: lower the chassis, and the car is pretty much the ideal design of what a hybrid coupe would look like. An offroader should look mean. It shouldn't look out of place covered in mud.

b) Engine: Expensive to modify, expensive to maintain, requires a space shuttle manual to work on.

c) Price point I know it says 50K, but we all know that its going to be higher once production begins. I just don't see that there'd be such a high demand for a 50K+ dedicated offroader. Not unless the thing completely trounces its competition.

Take a look at Bowler Wildcat/Nemesis cars, thats pretty much what you are going to be competing with in your price range. And those things have actual racing pedigree with tons of wins under their belt.

Anyways back to the sports car market. Yes its a saturated market, but its so much bigger than the offroad market. There is plenty of space as long as you build something people will want. And you have the whole build by people like you thing going for you, which would have helped.

To me, if I were in your shoes I'd scrap the whole offroader idea and build a sports car. Lower the thing. Throw an engine in the rear. Paint the plastic. Its a much easier segment to compete in, compared to the offroader market.

<comment><USER4> Prepare for a long response (my apologies for monopolizing this space)

All good points. Let me address each point individually:

Engine: Agree that offroaders like power; for the 3,000 – 3,200 lb offroader we are building, the BMW 335d offers substantial power. If customers want more power, and some will, there are plenty of tuner options available.

The BMW engine is more expensive than other options, and it may be somewhat more challenging to take apart if you're not use to it. But since all LM customers will build their own vehicle alongside an expert, and will take part in builder training – each customer will know the engine and the vehicle.

Disagree that offroaders don't care about clean diesel. If the proposal was to force enthusiasts to choose between performance and a "green" ride, I would agree with you; they will choose performance. But this is not an ultimatum.

Enthusiasts want both – performance and sustainability. I say sustainability and not "green" purposely. Yes, we are reducing particulate emissions (this is what is usually meant by "green"); by lightweighting the vehicles and using the most efficient powertrain for the purpose of each segment, we are indeed "green". But by also using an engine that is engineered for reliability (both BMW & diesel have superior reliability and sustainability) the need to replace parts is decreased and therefore more sustainable. There are other factors to consider, but these are the main points.

In places like Arizona we have found that off-roaders are one of the primary groups to take care of the land. They want to preserve the area they so enjoy. This frame of mind opens them up to more sustainable options, like clean diesel – as long as they don't have to give up performance, they are happy. And if more efficient sustainable options are not a demand of the market, but a mere tertiary benefit – Local Motors is happy because we are lending a hand in reducing our nations dependence on foreign oil and eventually, fossil fuels in general.

Reduction of our reliance on foreign oil and fossil fuels is one of our pillars, which Local Motors is founded on. If we can make significant strides to promote a "no compromise" mentality, one that celebrates not only power but also efficiency in such a performance-driven market, then I would say we are proving ourselves just as well as Tesla or any of the others.

Design: The Rally Fighter is a dual ride-height design. If you want it lower, it can be lowered. For off-roading you will want it higher so you can utilize all 18" of wheel travel. The Rally Fighter can jump – and that's a big part of the fun.

Remember that the stability of the vehicle has more to do with the weight displacement than the height of the vehicle. The engine is set low, lowering the point of gravity to the extent possible while maintaining ground clearance. The wide stance of the Rally Fighter also promotes stability.

You are right that an off-roader should look mean – and the posted renderings are shiny and unmean looking (sorry!) We will muddy it up, and it will look more at home at that point. The stance and size make it aggressive in my eyes, but this is subjective.

Price Point: $50k is not cheap, this we know. We will build less expensive vehicles for less expensive segments. We will also build Baja-ready Rally Fighters which will cost more than $50k.

The Bowler Nemesis is a comparable vehicle in many senses, though we still see a few advantages with the Rally Fighter: The nemesis weighs about 1,000lbs more than the RF, and it costs over $130,000. Also the Nemesis runs on E85 – and there are exactly zero E85 refueling stations in Arizona.

Building cars is not a new science and neither is building relatively efficient cars; we see great gains in efficiency simply by lightweighting. As a know-how kind of car guy, if you set your mind to it you could clearly build cars. Bringing desirable cars to market in a cost effective manner through a sustainable business model IS a new science – this is what Local Motors brings to the table.

Still curious to know where you are located. Would love to open the conversation to the type of sports car you desire.

<comment><USER3> I'm pretty sure that there is almost 0 aftermarket support for the X6/335d, at least at this point. But thats not the point, the point is that BMW Aftermarket parts cost an arm and a leg. Take the BMW 335i for example...you can spend close to $2,000 for a Dinan exhaust, only to get a 6hp gain. Thats just not something thats viable for most people, especially offroaders who'd end up denting the thing after a few outings. And chances are the cost will be even higher, since the run would be much smaller.

Building a vehicle alongside an expert, for most people would mean standing behind the expert's back and looking. The whole idea that someone will pick up how to work on the car is luducrous. For one, the expert will be working on the car using a lift, and all the necessary tools, while the customer would be working on the floor of their garage with half the tools missing. Adding a complicated engine to the mix, that few people are experts on, outside of the dealership, just seems unnecessary. I mean lets face it, the engine choice is just a gimmick.

You are forgetting the 3rd part, price. Yes, people would pick the green engine if it produced the same performance as a regular engine.(Although I'm not that sure about the offroader crowd), but not when they need to pay 4-5K more for the car because of it.

The usual enthusiast equation is: "Performance, Reliability, Price, choose 2". Gas mileage isn't really part of the equation. Yes the need to replace parts, may be decreased due to reliability, but when you do need to replace parts, you'll be paying an arm and a leg, because its a BMW.

Jumping may be a part of the fun, but I just don't see people jumping in a 50K car. A dedicated off roader, you built in your garage for 10K...sure, a 50K car? No way.

Yes lowering the point of gravity will help with stability, but I wouldn't count on this thing to be highway safe. Which kinda makes me doubt that this thing will end up being road legal.

The stance and size are aggressive, but the concept itself, makes it look like one of those lifted compact car pics you see floating around on the net. + the front end kinda says that someone spent all their effort developing the side profile, and then threw together a quick front end. The lights for example, look like fog lights, and not standalone headlamps.

50K is cheap depending on what segment you attack. The problem is that the segment you are attacking is focused mainly on the 20 year old Broncos and Wranglers. 50K for a sporty looking car is no problem, and will make it much easier to sell the cars. For every offroader guy who wants a 50K offroader, you'll have a thousand sports car guys who want a 50K sports car.

The thing is, that with sports cars, you can pretty much getaway with simply building a beautiful car. Its pretty easy to make a car perform, since the formula has been known for a while. And its much easier to make it be reliable, compared to an offroader that gets taken for jumps. Getting a bunch of people bitching that your car blew the shocks after 3 months is not good for business. Doesn't matter if you don't have warranty, and that everyone knows that if you take the car offroad, it won't last as long.

The thing is that the Nemesis has pedigree, the Bowler team has won numerous races. The guys at top gear have creamed their pants about the Bowler. The Rally Fighter is pretty much an unknown, with no pedigree, and questionable looks. When you buy a Bowler, the person knows, I can now win this thing. Unless you can arrange the Rally Fighter to enter into a rally, and win, it'll be a problem. And even then, how many people compete in Rallies? You can't base your business on a few hundred people.

Yes building other cars down the road is a good idea, my point is that for a first car, you need something that'll bring attention to your brand. And the offroader segment is just too small and too outside the mainstream to do it. If your first car is a 50K sports car, you'll pretty much expose your brand to the entire country. You'll be covered by all publications. If your first car is a 50K Offroader, you'll just be covered in the 4-5 offroader mags. The whole offroader concept may have some legs later on, when you have a line up of other cars. But building it as a first car, is equivalent to corporate suicide. Take the Bowler for example, great offroader, but its pretty much unknown outside of the offroader community, and even there, most people have no idea what it is.

The whole idea of having people work on the car is not cost efficient. You need to do the same thing as the Catarham guys, give the option to just ship the parts, and give the option to buy a pre-assembled car from a dealer. Thats the only way to go mainstream.

As far as location, I'm in NJ.

As far as a sports car I desire that's not out there. Well lets see: the car would need to be a 3 door coupe(Like the Integra/RSX/Supra/300ZX). Powertrain would include a twin turbo engine, AWD and a 6 speed manual. All the important settings should be adjustable from the cockpit.

Power selector: 3 stages - Daily Driver - 200hp(optimized for max mpg), Sport - 350hp, Race - 500hp. Do this by modifying the boost controller and fuel maps.

Drivetrain selector: Auto - Acts as RWD until it starts slipping, at which point starts shifting power to the front wheels. Manual - give the user a way to manually choose the setup. If I want to have 100% RWD, it should let me do that.

Suspension selector: 3 Settings: Daily Driver, Sport, Race, that adjusts the shock stiffness/ride height based on driver preference.

Extra features: HIDs, LSD, Traction Control(that can be 100% turned off), Digital Gauge Cluster(fully modifiable/wi-fi capable)

Something like that would fly of the shelves at 50K. Probably at 100K even. Just as long as the car looks good. As long as you have the looks, people will be willing to give the car a chance.

<comment><USER4> The Local Motors Micro-Factory will play 3 roles: Build, Sell, & Service. BMW diesel engines are certainly understood in the aftermarket, but you are right they are more complicated. Concerning that point, Local Motors will provide service for the region surrounding the Micro-Factory - for the area where the vehicle is sold. This is an important point, so thank you for bringing it up.

We chose a more complicated engine because it is cleaner, and delivers more long-term value. We considered the SL1, but as we compared apples to apples, and presented the choice to the community, the 335d was chosen.

The trophy trucks that win Baja 1000 might spend half a million dollars. Clearly, this is not that. But for $50k you can experience Baja, the jumps, the desert of Arizona and you can learn your car inside and out. NJ is about as far from the desert as possible, but if you checkout offroad and baja forums you will see what ppl are willing to invest in their rides - $50k is an investment and it will have to be worthwhile. But in terms of the function and performance you will gain for the dollar, the Rally Fighter is quite competitive.

This is one of those things that can not be proven with words, but once we get the build process rolling in the fall we will be able to share more. At that point I hope you will help us find ways to improve the process and include more of what will make it exciting for you (like a vehicle you actually want, for instance!)

Thank you for sharing your very specific desires. I hope you will go to the site (local-motors.com) and find a body for your specs. Tell 'em you want it in Jersey!

<comment><USER3> Here is the question you need to ask yourself...is your community going to be buying your cars? Seems to me, like the current community is made up of artistic types who'd rather buy a Prius(which probably explains the engine choice). You need to go promote the thing on offroader sites to see the true market conditions, or you'll end up building a car noone wants.

You can experience those same jumps in a lifted Bronco. And if you screw up and roll the thing, you won't be out 50K.

Yes there are people who have 50K invested in their rigs. But that didn't happen overnight, it happened year to year, a few grand at a time. And very few of those high end rigs get taken offroad + when its time to sell, the people get bent over the table, since you won't find many people willing to spend that much money on a weekend toy.

Going to the site now, would be pretty pointless since its just pictures. No guarantee that the thing will even be built. Knowing that it takes close to 2000 hours to assemble a kit car, I don't think we'll be seeing a finished product for a couple of years.

<comment><USER5> True that the site is a large proportion of design enthusiasts right now, but since that is who normally designs cars, are we any worse off than a normal car company.<br><br> If you were to jump a Bronco, it would be nothing like the Rally Fighter and we have plenty of Bronco Jumpers in our team to prove it. Short wheel base short travel, Bronco's make for a spine pounding ride over 35miles per hour on a baja desert.<br><br> As for the site having more than pictures, I recommend clicking the build tab. The Rally fighter will be debuted at SEMA (Nov 09). <br><br> Many kit cars take 200 hrs to build...Lone Star (7 days), Factory Five same, etc. You must be good to make this time, but 2000 hours is excessive (though possible for certain people on certain builds). The whole point is that we started Local Motors to addres those scary long build times. Come aboard and give it a little try before you declare so unilaterally that it will never work. Are you so desperate for it to fail? We are pretty good at listening to our faults and appreciate all of your criticism. Hope to see you on the site. (www.local-motors.com)

<comment><USER3> Yes design enthusiasts are the ones who design cars...but I doubt at GM/Honda/BMW that they are the ones making the engine choice. Nothing wrong with having a diesel option, but you are forcing your customers to pay a premium, for something they don't need.

I mean if you are going to use a BMW engine, why not use the one from 335i? If you look at BMWs: 335i sedan 300hp for $40K, 335d sedan 265hp for $45K.

So that's a ~$5K premium for the diesel option. I dunno about you, but pretty much every car enthusiast I know, would rather pay $5K less, and get 35 more hp. And lets not forget the fact that the 335i engine has a crapload of aftermarket support, while the 335d has none.

I'm not an offroader, so I dunno about jumping etc. But thats sorta the point, desert racers are almost non-existent, there are so very few of them out there, and only a tiny percentage of those can afford to pay $50K for a toy. You pretty much slashed your possible market to a few hundred rich guys who are into offroading.

The pictures I was talking about the other designs.

I'm not saying the whole idea is a failure, I'm saying that the starting vehicle choice is. Your motto is "Build the car of your dreams", but then you turn around and select a vehicle that only a tiny minority would want.

<comment><USER5> Cool, now we are talking. Couple of thoughts.

1 - we are using the 335i engine. And it is one of 3 engine systems we have fitted for the rally fighter. So I agree.

2 - Our entire business is a revolutionary auto business model, so we are structured to do niche production and make that our winning strategy. Each micro-factory serves only a regional area. 2000cars max production. Kinda like IKEA or Cabella's for cars. So call it a minority and you would be right. As for desert racing. It is a big deal in the American Southwest, so we believe it will be successful. The whole point is that since people like you (and me) don't off-road race and don't really know about it, that big companies like Honda, Chevy, and BMW will never make a car that works for this minority since the market isn't big enough to support their massive tooling costs...voila a market opportunity is created for a startup company. Since the Rally Fighter is on and off road legal and seats 2 adults in front and 2 in back (or 3 car seats), it is not my definition of a toy. But I certainly want people to think of it as the most fun car and experience that they have ever bought.

I love your thoughts, and I so wish you were making these critiques on our forum so our community could hear your thoughts. We are about to launch a general forum and perhaps we can entice you to post there.

We will soon be choosing our next LM model to make with the help of our community, and we would love to have you involved in that choice.

Thought you might want to checkout this post last night by Jeff Jarvis on his BuzzMachine Blog. The comment stream there shows the breadth of opinion. <http://bit.ly/9CRkv>

<comment><USER3> 1-Didn't know, the site pretty much just states the 335d's engine.

2-Are you sure it'll be road legal? Pretty sure the ride height alone would disqualify it. And if it fails to be road legal, then its pretty much is a weekend toy by definition.

Sure car companies aren't making cars for the market, but how much of that is that they don't know a market exists, and how much of it is that they see that the demand is met by dirt bikes, ATVs, Dune Buggies. Also I think car companies do cater somewhat to this market with specific models/trims.

General blogs is something you shouldn't put too much emphasis on. I mean take that Jeff Jarvis guy...he thinks: "its first model is a muscle car", which obviously its not.

You need to hit up some offroader forums to get some true feedback. Moving to Arizona couldn't hurt either. I mean if you look at it, you have a bunch of guys in Boston, trying to build the perfect desert racer for someone in Arizona(are there many deserts in Massachusetts?), for all you know whomever you are consulting on what people in Arizona want is pulling your chain: "Oh yeah, we'd LOVE a pink hybrid to offroad in, we love the environment and mother earth".

<comment><USER5> @vaksel Correction, I was distinguishing the 335 from the X6, we are using the 335d. As for why not the 335i, The carbon footprint is worse than the 335d given that it is 30% less fuel efficient. We are focused on changing the impact of vehicles and this is a good way to start. If we were going to go for a gas system, we are prepared to offer the LS series engines. More hp by 430 vs 300. I hear you on the "Performance, Reliability, Price...choose 2" That has been true in the past, but we do not think that applies when you compare our product+experience to others product. LM is "Design, Performance, Buildability, Price...choose 3 (green is a given)". Our customers want great looking and great performance, and don't want to be keyed in the parking lot for driving something whose mpg is measured in gpm vice mpg. If someone wants to race and get more than the 425lb-ft from the 335d, then they have the room to swap to an LS7 and to crank it up.

As for road legal, you are thinking of passenger car specs, this vehicle would classify as a mixed use vehicle in which case many of the FMVSS specs to which you are referring would not be applicable. Hope that helps.

As for buggies and dirtbikes occupying the market...I guess I am just not going to be able to convince you and should not try. But here goes. ATVs and Bikes are a TOTALLY different experience which require a much more fit rider and mindset. Buggies are not anywhere near as capable as "trucks" made for this landscape (to be precise, we are talking about 25mph max vs 70mph avg.) Then there is the subject of Pre-running. Much of it today is done either in sand-rail/types or in sup'd up F-150/types. Most races (i.e. Reno to Vegas) are pre-run in a column of cars where you are simply eating dust the entire day. So sandrails are miserable, go ask John Marking of Fox Racing. As for sup'd up F-150 types after spending in excess of 150K you will have 10 inches of wheel travel and a 7000lb vehicle that needs a 700+ hp engine to move it, and it becomes a veritable space race of mass and power. The whole point is that no company has ever seen the profit in making cars for this size market, but LM makes cars with a much lower break-even volume allowing us to access a much smaller niche. Even if you are right and the market is not as large as we would want, we will have invested less than $2MM in the build program, so we can afford to scrap it and move on to the next ...compare this to Fisker or Tesla (other startup car co.'s) that have each raised in excess of $200MM and only have 1 model competing in very VERY busy marget segments.

As for MA, you are at Y-Combinator and should understand this. Just because we are starting in MA doesn't mean that we are finishing here. We are in a small startup Ops Center. We have 2 letters of intent on properties in Phoenix and are already working on our MA model. When we started we had no idea that the community would like the performance off-road desert racing segment, so we couldn't predict where would be best to go...so we dove in and got started. Hindsight is 20-20, but I prefer to get going. After all, this is unlike any start-up in any typical venture type market, so some of the nimble ideas do not apply as well. We are building a car company in an intensely difficult time and are taking risks where we feel appropriate and necessary and taking them large. Where we do not need to take risk, we are intensely conservative. I also hope that this helps.

Again, I am so stoked that you care enough to dig and to answer. I really think that our community could use your insight...hope you will join www.local-motors.com

<comment><USER3> Well the 335i vs 335d is a difference of only 10 mpg...sure it sounds great to say 30% more efficient, but thats something people care about in daily drivers, not the weekend toys. And yes the LSx would be a better choice, I was just giving the example of the 335i just because its another bmw engine.

I just don't believe that there are that many green gearheads to gamble the stake of the company on. Not when you have people running test pipes just to get a few extra horsepower.

Yes people want a good looking car, yes they want to have great performance, as far as the keying thing that pretty much never happens. The only times I heard of cars getting keyed involved a bat shit crazy ex girlfriend.

The thing is, why not offer the LSx as manufacturer installed option. In the build stage it makes pretty much zero difference on what engine to put in. Give the people the choice. Same goes for SEMA, you'll get much friendlier coverage if the demo model has a real engine under the hood. If you do, the coverage will focus on the car company. If you choose to use the 335d engine, the coverage will focus on ridiculing the engine choice. Its just too easy of a target.

I'll take your word about the mixed use thing, since I couldn't really find anything about it. But I don't think its as easy as you are hoping for it to be. I mean, its pretty much impossible to import a car from Japan or Europe and make it road legal.

Well like I said its not really my segment, I like to stick to tarmac. And yeah Tesla and Fisker have invested a ton more money, but lets face it, they are doing a completely different thing since their cars are electric. And require a much larger support system, + they've actually finished their cars. And there is no reason to scrap the thing, something like this(although a little meaner looking) would probably do quiet well in a place like Dubai.

How did you actually pick this thing over some of the other designs? I mean I honestly can't see anyone picking this thing if they had other choices that included super cars. You sure you didn't get spammed by the designer using a bunch of proxies?

And there is nothing wrong with taking risks, it just seems like in this situation, you are taking it for no apparent reason. I mean lets face it, with 2,000 cars, you could build a copy of Pontiac Aztec, and still sell your full inventory over a few years. So why start out in a market with zero mainstream appeal? Why not think long term? Instead of building a car for a tiny market, build something for the mainstream enthusiast. Instead of targeting the few thousand offroaders, target the millions of sports car enthusiasts.

There is plenty of space for a U.S. version of TVR. And the $45K-75K sport coupe market is pretty bare. Plenty of opportunity to enter with an exotic looking limited production super car that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

Dunno about joining the site, maybe when you add the general message board, where it'll be more of a real discussion and not just a commenting system to a bunch of photoshops.

<comment><USER4> Sorry for the delay, Vaskel! Had a bit of traveling to do these past few days. I went from Chicago to Atlanta for my Father's wedding - what a to-do, great fun. (TMI? :) )

In our eyes 10mpg is a huge savings. Couple that with efficiency gains by utilizing lightweight materials, and boost that with a clean diesel with reduced emissions; for Local Motors, this is the way to move forward. We are not looking for a one-time solution and we will get better as time goes on. With each step, with each vehicle we can only hope to improve with each iteration.

Your views are well heard, and we are aware that many share your views on the type of engine which would be easiest to use and manipulate. If we have made a mistake and the 335d is too difficult, the Rally Fighter is fit for 2 other engine opitons - among those is a plain ol' gasoline engine. Not our favorite option, but we do hear you.

Laughed about the bat shit crazy ex girlfriend. Thank you for that :)

Your words, "Give the people a choice" hits home. The open development process at local-motors.com is exactly that - a forum for participation and choice. While we can digest what you say in this space, the votes of our community members and dedicated participants are the votes and voices we follow. We want your voice to be heard. If you would prefer to wait for a vehicle that is more personal, one that you would use and have a personal vested interest in, I understand. I don't think the desert racing segment is your cup o' tea. But your opinion is so valuable, so consider yourself invited to take part.

RE: "zero mainstream appeal", the segment is certainly limited and the choice is intentional. This is a segment in which we could build a product to have very clear improvements over anything else on the market. A segment that is already building cars, and a segment that is passionate like you wouldn't believe. We will build cars for the tarmac, for Jersey - but we will not, not, not build cars for the masses. Please everyone, and you will eventually please no one. The future of exciting products and cars is niche and supported by a hands-on experience. Again, time will tell as to whether we are "right". I hope you will stay close so we can hash out this conversation again as we grow, and as new niche local markets make their desires known.

I also want to note that I think all of your notes on the US auto industry and market potential are more or less right on. There is space for not only more cars in the segments you mentioned, there is also room for more car companies. I agree with you.

Trust that we have done our "homework", and our business model is viable on a local level w/ limited production for niche markets. The changes you are suggesting we make ("build for mainstream enthusiast", "target millions") would make us un-local motors - and that is not our goal.

This company and community is focused on creating a unique local experience for local enthusiasts. Your suggestions & strategy may be viable, but it is not local.

Thanks again!

Ariel Ferreira

firstname.lastname@example.com</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Boilerplate for turning a mobile website into an iPhone app - <AUTHOR> http://github.com/nabilfreeman/ios-universal-webview-boilerplate

<comment><USER2> Isn't this exactly what Cordova does? You mention "so you don't have to use Cordova", but you don't mention what the advantages are.

<comment><USER3> When I looked at Cordova it was a complete mess and pain to deal with. The docs where confusing and out of date. I just needed a simple x-code project, not a kitchen sink that was installed in the attic for some reason.

<comment><USER4> Setup:

        npm install -g cordova
        cordova create HelloWorld
        cordova platform add [ios|android|wp8|..]

Running:

        cordova serve # browser
        cordova emulate [ios|android|wp8|..] # emulation

This has always been pretty straightforward to me, it's a bit of an extra pain to debug iOS development on a non-OSX machine, but that's true of the parent link, too.

What's been a complete mess to deal with for you? And how long ago did you last use Cordova?

<comment><USER3> Looking at the doc page I have no real clue I would get to what you did.

[http://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/5.0.0/](http://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/5.0.0/)

Granted when I looked at the docs it was a while ago and much worse, but still it wants to teach you everything before letting you see something.

<comment><USER4> I would start at the home page, instead.

      1. http://cordova.apache.org/
      2. Click 'Download'
      3. Click the link in "[For the] npm version see the Command-Line Interface section [..]"

There's the same set of instructions listed in my comment above.

[http://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/5.0.0//guide_cli_index.md....](http://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/5.0.0//guide_cli_index.md.html#The%20Command- Line%20Interface)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Now for a program to turn iPhone apps into web pages. Immediate download! No app store! No space tied up on your phone! Searchable with Google!

<comment><USER6> Slowed rendering! Lower responsiveness! Non-native controls widgets! No good way to monetize them! Not able to take advantage of all native APIs! Can't use offline except with the limited storage APIs! Worse battery performance for demanding code!

<comment><AUTHOR> ...For now. You should have a play with a Chromebook, Web software is incredible when the hardware / APIs are there :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Thank you!

I've been waiting for so long for something simple like this to popup. Bonus points for also making an Android version: [https://github.com/nabilfreeman/android-webview- boilerplate](https://github.com/nabilfreeman/android-webview-boilerplate)

<comment><AUTHOR> No problem! I've forked the Android version from somebody else on Github and haven't made many changes to it yet, so the credit for that one should go to [http://github.com/slymax](http://github.com/slymax).

I plan to make an Android one as simple as this. Google are working hard to make development easier but it's still a very poor experience compared to Xcode.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> As this simply wraps a web view, and doesn't really add anything more than what Safari does, isn't the odds of it ever being accepted by the App Store very small?

Cordova apps are accepted because they do have an API into phone functions.

<comment><USER9> First app I ever built was a Cordova-based database of visa requirements for US Citizens. You could find a country by Name or see all countries that you could visit without a visa or with instant visa at the border.

I had dreams of using it myself when wandering the world without a local internet connection and seeing where I wanted to fly to next.

Apple rejected it saying it was nothing more than a web page wrapped in an app.

<comment><USER10> If you build it in Ionic (which was built on top of Cordova), you can get it onto the device via Ionic View. [http://view.ionic.io/](http://view.ionic.io/)

There may be other solutions, but this is what I'm currently familiar/playing with.</comment></comment></comment>


How Hackers Can Steal Secrets from Reflections - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=hackers-can-steal-from-reflections <comment><USER2> Reminds me very much of the recent "copying keys from photos" story:

[http://www.jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/news/news_releases/release....](http://www.jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/news/news_releases/release.sfe?id=791)

</comment><comment><USER3> I find it interesting that this sort of snooping is now being attributed to 'hackers' - even making the fairly safe assumption that they mean 'crackers'.

Really, a lot of this seems to be plain old espionage of the type that you could easily imagine popping up in a 1960s spy serial. Interesting, for sure, but not really the sort of clever manipulation that you would normally ascribe to 'hackers'.

Now, the curious part of me wants to go off and think about whether this seemingly false attribution is indicative of anything more significant in the wider world... but the cynical part of me wants to seize the moment and start marketing super-high-end non-reflective eyeglasses to paranoid executives!

</comment><comment><USER4> I stopped reading after the first page. It is obvious that this article goes over the top. "Reading your data by observing the flashing red LED on your network switch," nonsensical.

<comment><USER5> You can extract several bits of entropy per typed character from network traffic timing information. That's plenty to bring an exhaustive password- guessing attack down into the feasible range, if you have some way to know when a particular person is typing a particular password.

As a crude countermeasure, I leave about a second between adjacent characters in a password when I am typing the password over a network.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> lo-tech Van Eck Phreaking, it seems</comment>