This hit hard: The one sentence that will convince you to return/skip the iPad - <AUTHOR>

"I know it's awesome, but the iPad is inherently device meant for consuming, not producing. By getting the iPad you'll spend more time consuming and less time producing."
This hit me hard. I met my friend over beers yesterday. Ever since he said this, it clicked, and I've been afraid to use the iPad. I'm considering returning it.
I thought back: Shit, he's right. While I've put some books & iTunesU videos, I've barely done anything useful with it.
What does YC think? Obviously this clicks more for YC folks than the average consumer.
Edit: Of course you can use it for useful things. I'm saying my personal usage so far has been anything but productive. Having the iPad on and NOT using it to browse the web/flipboard/etc is incredibly hard.  Something even PG struggles with: www.paulgraham.com/distraction.html <comment><USER2> I've been echoing this for a while. The iPad is a _stellar_ content consumption device. If you just want to read email and watch YouTube and see pictures of the grandkids, the iPad is a fully-functional computing device, insofar as you need one.

It is a truly abysmal creation device, though. Typing on it is slower than on a physical keyboard. You can't switch between apps very easily, so doing anything where you'd have to reference or copy information is greatly hindered. If you want to use "non-visible" keystrokes (like control or win/cmd), it's a non-starter. The OS is heavily locked down and so divorced from the concept of "processes" and "files" that it is designed to not simply hide the internals, but to actively deny that they exist. While it's possible to create with it, it's absolutely the wrong tool for it. The hacker ethos is adamant about using the right tools for the job. Using the iPad as a creation platform (with, perhaps, the sole exception of a finger-painting device) is akin to using a pair of scissors like a bandsaw. You can get it done, maybe, after a lot of work and a lot of pain, but it's the wrong tool for the job.

I really appreciate how usable the iPad is as a device for people who simply want to consume content. But, I think that to treat it as the "next generation of computing" (see also: the "post-PC era") does a tremendous disservice to our industry, our children, and our society as a whole. Breeding out curiosity and penalizing the tinkerer is not a good thing. I am a programmer because my computer is my artist's canvas - code is the medium with which I paint. It is a deeply creative, deeply engaging, deeply expressive device for me. The iPad is not - and by design, cannot be.

It's a fantastic device for consuming content, but if you're going to sign up with the iPad, you're going to have to sign up to the consumer-oriented culture it is infused with. That'll be $0.99. Please don't peek behind the curtain.

Edit: Because I'm sure it'll be brought up, don't confuse creating content _for_ the iPad (with your full-fledged Mac computer) with creating content _on_ the iPad. The former is, of course, happening all the time, and that's great. But unless you're buying the device plus the $99 developer's license to be able to program it, you're not buying a "production" device.

<comment><USER3> _Because I'm sure it'll be brought up, don't confuse creating content for the iPad (with your full-fledged Mac computer) with creating content on the iPad. The former is, of course, happening all the time, and that's great. But unless you're buying the device plus the $99 developer's license to be able to program it, you're not buying a "production" device._

This distinction is entirely useless. Who cares if something is produced _for_ the iPad or not? The iPad is a distribution channel for producers. People can only consume what's been produced, right? Producing content for the iPad is producing content nonetheless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That we have become a consumer culture concerns me greatly.

That said, if people switch from consuming via TV which is entirely one-way, and switch to a consumption medium like the iPad that is two-way, that's a revolution.

The iPad is a revolution, and as entrepreneurs and developers, we should be aware of how it's changing the world around us.

But it's not a replacement for building, hacking, making and tinkering, but chances are, you aren't prone to forgetting that since you're reading this website.

<comment><USER5> > That we have become a consumer culture concerns me greatly.

I'm really skeptical that this is actually true. The hardware to produce things has gotten cheaper (computers, video/sound equipment), the knowledge is more easily and readily disseminated (tutorials online, videos on youtube, forums for specialized interests), and it's become easier to share things (uploading to vimeo and then posting to reddit.) It seems to me like it's even easier to "produce" than ever before, and that more people are doing it.

<comment><USER6> The iPad hardware itself speaks toward a consumer culture. We have a cultural obsolescence for their older devices: who even talks about iPad 1 or iPad 2 nowadays when there is iPad 3?

<comment><USER7> I'm still rather pleased with my iPad 1, and use it as my on-the-go computer for trips about once a month. And that's for real work: writing and editing articles, managing a team, and doing app support and random email. And yup, an iPad 1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Consumption is not useless. Yes, the iPad is purely for consumption, but if that consumption improves you as a person/programmer/whatever, it is not useless. You state that "by getting the iPad, you'll spend more time consuming and less time producing", but I think that's a fallacy, if you remember that iPad time is consumption time, it can be very valuable. It is also important to remember that much of that time may be time that you never would have spent producing anyway (lying in bed, riding the bus, whatever). If you think your iPad is destroying your productivity, then sure, return it, but remember that the iPad is very good for consuming things, and in order to produce, you must consume. Don't discount the role consumption has in production (great artists steal and all that).

<comment><USER9> I use my iPad heavily for consuming (books, movies, etc...) include watching videos for the Stanford classes I'm doing. I use my laptop to create. The two work harmoniously - I can consume (i.e. I have a copy of The C Programming language on the iPad) while creating to feed the cycle. Works well for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> \---bluetooth keyboard > Pages, email, blogging.

\---Garageband > music

\---Camera > Photos, video, photo editing

\---Painting apps > art, sketches, wireframing

\---Internet > anything

Super turbo false.

<comment><USER11> You can hardly write on the thing, just like with other mobile devices. Sketching or making notes would be the only option. Sure, technically you can write novel after novel on it. It just doesn't write nicely.

<comment><USER12> Hence the bluetooth keyboard as the first thing on his list ;)

<comment><USER11> Then, why don't you just get a laptop? Or slate?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> GarageBand for the iPad has some features as-yet unmatched on the Mac, so it's helped me create songs. (In fact, that was why I bought it). You can also use it to read documentation while programming on your main mac; you can even use it as a second monitor just to have more screen real estate on your mac. There are decent apps for writing and editing photos and painting and many other creative projects. I think the idea that it's "for consumption" is just lazy/silly thinking. If you want to create on it, buy apps used to create stuff, or write your own apps.

</comment><comment><USER14> Well, your friend got that right but why didn't you get that before?

When I bought my Xoom tablet, I had in mind two things:

a. it would do a great remote control device for a headless and home-made music player (plugged to a decent sound-system),

b. I need to rest.

While a. was definitely the fun factor for me, b. was a way for me to stop bringing work home so easily. With a tablet, you can consume most of the stuff you would with a laptop but as you can't produce, you're not tempted to start working on cool-new-interesting-project-2315.

Mixed results so far as I still often bring my laptop home from work. Also, a. didn't go that far (because of b. ? [1]).

[1] Ah well, contradictions.

</comment><comment><USER15> The problem isn't the iPad, the problem is probably you. There's nothing stopping you from "creating" with an iPad.

<comment><USER16> I'd be interested in hearing what if anything current iPad owners produce.

<comment><USER17> I do some programming on mine by SSHing into my main machine via Prompt. And I do some writing on it, too. A Bluetooth keyboard makes these activities just as easy as on a full fledged computer and it is nice to be able to roll over in bed and turn on the iPad when inspiration strikes.

<comment><USER16> Makes a lot of sense... could see that being convenient!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I would agree -- except for the fact that as a musician, I've benefited tremendously from the recording apps that have allowed me to produce multitrack songs, record scenery as background for my videos, and edit it all together in iMovie (a program that I don't have access to on a PC).

I will need to get rid of that netflix app, though. ;)

</comment><comment><USER5> I do a lot of consuming: I watch a few TV shows, read Hacker News, proggit, and read books.

Are you really advocating that we shouldn't consume anything at all?

To me, the reason I'm considering returning the iPad is that it's nothing more than a luxury computing device. Sure, it's kind of convenient in some ways (small and light), but in other ways, it's totally a drag (iOS is underwhelming, the lack of keyboard.) I like reading on it a lot, but then, the stuff I read on it is really just websites, and I don't feel like I need a dedicated device for that.

</comment><comment><USER19> It is far from consumption only. I do; Tons of email, all my note taking, use story boarding and notecard apps to outline projects, banking and investment, participating in online forums aka & reddit

Also, consumption is great. If you consume good things. Lately been watching pycon videos, reading hn, learning chef, aws research, and wiki tangents on sub atomic particles and german east Africa in wwi.

iPad fucking rocks. Everyone should have a tablet of some sort.

</comment><comment><USER20> Well you should probably define what you mean by "producing". What do you expect to be able to produce? More code work? Art work? Photography? Blog posts and articles?

Without an iPad, I wouldn't understand touch interface design and UX. I probably wouldn't have read Steve Jobs biography, or Mark Cuban's ebook. But I did, and they inspired me to create. I successfully learned to program through Xcode and my iPad, because making something that you can touch right before your eyes is amazingly delightful and encouraging. Sometimes I read fantastic articles on Flipboard, or HN, and I get great ideas. Sometimes the first thing I do in the morning is check my app sales from the day before while in bed. I look at my sales graph and rankings. Regardless of whether the number is good or bad, my brain starts firing off on how I can do better, or why such and such is happening.

All these things inherently require me to consume, but lead to some form of productivity. Most HN'ers don't channel surf or watch TV for the sake of killing time. We're productivity freaks, so we only watch things we're really interested in, or things we think we can learn from. Consumption on the iPad seems to be exactly the same.

</comment><comment><USER21> I wrote my first novel on my iPad. Got a lit agent a few months later from it.

The consumption thing is bogus.

<comment><USER22> > I wrote my first novel on my iPad.

But why? Wouldn't it be much more convenient to write on a laptop/PC with proper tools? How does one write more than a few sentences on an iPad? Don't tell me STT...

<comment><USER23> You get an editor app, and you start typing.

There are apps which specialise in writing novels: they have special sections for writing character descriptions, plot ideas, etc.

A PC is convenient if you have the time to sit down in front of it. An iPad is great when you want to write on the bus or train, where a laptop is inconvenient and a PC is flat out impossible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> You can have both an iPad for sit-back consumption and a computer for productive creation. As a consumption device, the iPad is tough to beat, for those who don't have to be producing output at every waking moment. Sometimes, you want to ingest information, and an iPad is a very effective way to do that.

</comment><comment><USER25> The "new iPad" keynote highlighted that you could shoot, edit, view and upload HD movies, explicitly saying that this countered the conception of the iPad as for consuming. That is, provided you're producing movies (or probably other multimedia). But maybe one day for programming too:

      Programmers will stop editing character arrays, realizing that character arrays are
      not a convenient representation of code (neither for computers nor for humans).
      Fueled by touchscreens."

<http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4487#comment-69882>

</comment><comment><USER23> I carrying all my reference books, component data sheets and circuit schematics on the iPad. I carry pictures, presentations, citation lists, bibliographies, research notes, and even program a little Perl or Python on the side.

Am I a consumer? Is the iPad bad for me because it only allows me to "consume" my data sheets? Have you thought about replacing "consume" with other verbs such as "read," "listen," or "watch"? Books are not consumed. They are read. When you have read a book, it is still there, waiting to be read again. People who talk about "consuming" books are idiots: people who are wilfully ignorant despite the wealth of information available to counter their opinion. Your friend is an idiot.

The idea that the iPad is a consumption only device is nonsense: [http://marklindner.info/blog/2010/03/28/is-the-ipad-a- consum...](http://marklindner.info/blog/2010/03/28/is-the-ipad-a-consumption- only-device/)

Note the date on that blog post: this argument has been done already, and is at least two years old.

Is it wrong to buy books because books are "read only" devices? Is the iPad bad for me because it allows me to carry all my reference manuals (in dead tree form, about 50-100kg of paper) and data sheets in my backpack? I have annotations in my books which reference various Internet resources, or include comments about trouble I've had getting some circuits to work. How would I annotate a book if the iPad was a "consumption only device"?

Learn to think for yourself and be a real entrepreneur, rather than pretending to be an entrepreneur and letting other people tell you what to think. Your faith in yourself must come from inside, not outside.

</comment><comment><USER26> True and false.

The iPad is inherently bad for producing, as most touch devices are (hm, iPhone, most Androids…?). Most touch devices and their interfaces make curating and consuming a very good experience, but producing is really hard (unless posting photos and short texts frequently is producing… and still, that's a new way of producing content we hadn't before).

And if you count curating as production, then, you're still producing. I overall don't think it's as bad as it looks, you're still going to produce when there is the need to… Or keep curating and doing small production the rest of the time.

</comment><comment><USER27> We have the iPad 1 and it is the most fought over device in the house. Kids make the most use of it - games, Khan Academy, Plex client, music etc Wife reads email, reads her fave sites, Skype etc I occasionally game on it, but mostly checking twitter from bed or browsing motorcycle sites. Never has there been a device in my household that so universally satisfies everyone's needs from a 5 year old girl to a 42 year old bloke. I couldn't really give a toss if I can produce anything on it or not.

</comment><comment><USER28> Skip? Meh...For those who wish to segment their lives into producing devices (Mac/PC) and consuming devices (iPad/Kindle) then it is actually a perfect fit!

I do understand the sentiment that your friend is providing by pointing out that your probability to become another consumer rather than a producer with the device in tow is a valid point!

<comment><USER23> Being a consumer or producer is going to be determined by whether you have an iPad or not? Really?

Having a PC means you have all those computer games waiting to distract you. PC and TVs are brain killers. The iPad is a brain nurturing device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's only primarily a consumption device because there's not enough devs building production apps for tablets. Which is why I bought one in the first place. We're working on production tools that we'll use ourselves and which are designed for tablets.

Summary: Don't like it? Hack it better :)

</comment><comment><USER30> Figure out what you want to be doing and see if the ipad fits in it.

Some creative things are more easily done on an iPad than a computer: I use the Adobe ideas app (which has the most fluid 'ink') and a heavy stylus for creating sketches. Penultimate is quite useful to organize UI sketches. Also PDF annotation on the iPad is easier to do than on my mac (with a stylus).

With (and without) an external keyboard, I use plaintext to take notes and taskpaper to manage todos. Lighter and less obtrusive than a full blown laptop.

You can also use iPhoto, iMovie, Pages, Number, Keynote, and there are many stop motion animation apps.

Maybe it is better for you to return it and use the money for buying a new laptop, hacksaw or a 3d printer (or sewing kit). It is up to you.

</comment><comment><USER31> A big part of my job is finding new technologies and keeping myself informed -- for this, the iPad has been an excellent tool.

Another big part of my job is testing out new technologies and writing about my experiences -- for this, the iPad is next to useless.

That said, I take a lot of notes on my iPad. For this, it's not optimal, but its getting better -- closer to pen & paper. Unlike pen & paper, I can actually share my notes and drawings with my globally-distributed team.

If Apple wants to reverse the trend of perception against the iPad as a consume-only device, they should perfect its ability to simulate pen & paper and tout its usefulness as a note-taking device. This appears to be the approach Samsung is taking with the Galaxy Note.

</comment><comment><USER32> One reason why I like having (some) new widgets is that they change how I think about what is possible. You could not have figured out modern phones while plugging away with your old Nokia. Some devices help you see the future, and for me, my ideas are certainly affected by the technology I use.

Many apps are productive in nature - notes, reminders, stock trading etc. Kindle is very useful even if it's consumptive. Reading is consumptive, but also productive in the sense of 'doing something useful'. Besides, if you're away from your computer, aching to produce and you only have an iPad...write down what would help and make an app for that.

</comment><comment><USER33> So just buy and iPad and throw out your TV... assuming you have a TV that is ... ;-)

<comment><USER34> Don't forget your books too. The same assumption applies :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Content consumption is not necessarily evil. I see it as a natural part of user adoption of new technology. People will overuse it to unconsciously push the boundary of what's acceptable.

I see tablets as a key part of expanding and strengthening connectivity between people.. essentially social / behavorial economics. This is a natural element of the consumption curve.

A next form of convergence will have higher utility value ie, nfc, holographic displays, etc. Let the consumers run wild I say. They will be well poised to adopt the next phase of technical evolution.

</comment><comment><USER36> I don't know about iPad but when I bought my first Android tablet recently (I don't own any smart phone yet) my first instinct was that Android and this Tablet craze is nothing but more of the same consumerism. These are not productivity devices like computers and you can't really do or produce anything on it other than to consume and receive. The only thing that exist on these gadgets (be that smart phone or tablet) is the Market and these markets are there to sell you something.

I am since then convinced that Desktop or Laptops are not going anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER37> Here's what I think: I'll make up my own mind.

I don't get distracted like you and PG do. It seems to me you're blaming the device for a lack of discipline on your part. It's not designed to instill discipline. It's designed for convenience.

There's nothing wrong with "consuming". I read books, good articles, and so on. I read more than ever.

I don't understand the apparent war against this. It's not like everyone is hanging out, wasting time playing Angry Birds all day. Or maybe they are. But it doesn't matter to me, because I'm not.

</comment><comment><USER38> This is the very reason I haven't gotten one, or any tablet for that matter. I've had access to my roommate's iPad 2 since day one, but I've never found a good reason to use it.

</comment><comment><USER39> Well, that is Apple's end game for the iPad after all. The same goes for Amazon and its Kindle family of devices. Whether we like it or not, the iPad and other similar devices are media consumption devices by design. You really should have known that before you bought it.

Anyway, you do have the choice of either returning it or simply keeping it and making the most out of it. And that is by focusing on its strengths and basically everything that it does right.

</comment><comment><USER40> Tablets to me are just an easier way to check status updates and feeds, ie things I'm trying to get away from. They even favor laying down while doing it!

I'm constantly confronted with similar questions: should I watch this game on TV or spend the next two hours learning or making something, even if it turns out ultimately to be a failure? I'm getting better everyday at choosing the later.

</comment><comment><USER41> Tablets with pen input are going to be great for creation (although the current devices are a bit laggy, that should be fixed in the next twelve months). Hopefully Apple will change their minds and support more creative input.

Kids and old folks also seem to have their lives brightened up by iPads for the communication uses: video chat = realtime production of "content" ^.^

</comment><comment><USER42> Even producers spend time consuming content. I'd expect that we all consume far more content than we produce. It's worth optimising that experience as well.

If nobody consumed these media, what would be the point of producing them?

I am more interested in what are you consuming - news.ycombinator.com or news.fox.com? "Twilight" movies or "The Wire" TV series?

</comment><comment><USER43> There are much more producers now with youtube and more interesting links sites like YC and many others etc.

Now they all need much more consumers that do no use the traditional medium like TV. We need much more consumers with the iPads that consume these interesting artilces / stories and comment, share with friends just like I am doing right now on my iPad.

</comment><comment><USER44> Don't let other people do your thinking for you, and don't get something just because everyone else is getting it. An iPad is a tool. Either you have a need for it or you don't. In either case, if you decide to get one you're going to discover you're the same old you as you were prior to getting it. And hopefully that's a good thing! :)

</comment><comment><USER45> Tablets are weapons of mass distraction.

</comment><comment><USER46> This is the reason why I have stuck to my laptop. On the flip side majority of the people only consume. There is no reason for them to be carrying around the extra luggage. In fact I'm a consumer on TV, PS3, phone etc. the content creators use a different machine.

</comment><comment><USER3> What's wrong with the iPad being a device for consuming? I like consuming. And isn't it a good thing if people have more ways to consume the content producers are producing? Production without consumption is useless.

</comment><comment><USER47> What you say is more obviously true of a Kindle, but that doesn't mean that owning a Kindle makes you produce less overall. It just changes the way that you do consume when you choose to do so.

</comment><comment><USER48> Most YC users are consuming links here, not producing... so yeah. Also, consuming on the iPad is a completely legitimate way to stimulate yourself into producing.

</comment><comment><USER49> >books & iTunesU

>useless

pick one

</comment><comment><USER50> Feel free to send your iPad to me. I promise to thoroughly vet the balance I achieve between consumption and production. As a full-time developer (technical co-founder of a startup), I believe my perspective would be incredibly relevant to the YC crowd. I'll blog about it daily (from the iPad maybe?).

</comment><comment><USER51> Do some iOS dev and this will no longer be a problem.

</comment><comment><USER52> It also makes an awesome skype/facetime video phone.

</comment><comment><USER53> So is a book.

</comment><comment><USER54> This is broken thinking.

The iPad is for content consumption. So what? So are books. We survived them just fine. We survived TV, too.

Making content consumption easier is not a problem. You're just repeating the same hysterics we've heard time and time again.

More than ever before in history, people are empowered to create and share content. It stands to reason that it should have gotten even easier to sift through and consume this content. And it has.

</comment><comment><USER55> Citation needed! Who wrote that sentence?</comment>


Ask HN: How to get more downloads for Windows 8 app/game for free? - <AUTHOR>

Sorry for the re-post but my friend told me I did it wrong on the previous one.<p>I just created a Windows 8 game called Space Bugs(http://apps.microsoft.com/windows/en-US/app/space-bugs/df756f37-8bb6-4fc3-b240-219d829f0d29) to test out the market. It's been released for 3 days now and there are only 2 downloads - me and my friend. Yes, I didn't spend any money advertising. I thought that it would at least get several hundred downloads. I've released a few iPhone/iPad apps and that's always been the case. Has anyone been able to get traction without spending money on advertising? Any tips on where to get free or very cheap advertising? <comment><USER2> Not meant to be blunt, but there's a really obvious way: make the game better. Make it stand out visually, gameplay-wise, make sure people share your app (you could ask them to rate it, you might give them something in return), make people want to get back to your app. Create promotional images and submit them with your app so that your app can be featured when the Windows Store team thinks it's good enough. Listen to your users and fix their problems.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with all the suggestions but as I stated, only me and my friend have downloaded the game so far. In order to get user feedback and rating to improve the game, I need users to download it. I was just wondering if any other Windows 8 app/game developers are experiencing the same issue. Like I said with the iPhone/iPad game, you usually get a few hundreds if not more downloads on your first day of release without any advertising.

<comment><USER3> Try posting on some Windows-related blogs/forums/sites and get some exposure for the game.</comment></comment></comment>


Engie - A new Suggestion Engine for your data, seeking beta testers - <AUTHOR> http://engie.org/ We want to make it easy to go beyond analytics, and put your data to work for you and your customers. Whether you're suggesting 3D-printable models to users, predicting what merchandise will sell, or instantly deciding which courier should make the drop - recommendation technology can dramatically improve the way you do business.
Our suggestions work better because we focus on what matters: people. Every piece of data that we track is defined by how people interact with it, not what a computer thinks it is.
We believe that smart algorithms can do much more than tell you what movies to watch, and we're looking for a few companies to do a free beta test with us to help prove it. Please email us at email@example.com with your idea and the size of your database if you are interested, or if you want more information. <comment><USER2> Looks interesting. Please change the red background though. I couldn't look at your site for more than 5 seconds. It's just a little too bright IMO.

<comment><AUTHOR> Better?

<comment><USER2> Much better. I think the animations are great and your message is clear.</comment></comment></comment>


Less Wasting of Ketchup - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcoexist.com/1679878/mits-freaky-non-stick-coating-keeps-ketchup-flowing

<comment><USER2> The ketchup demo is amazing, but the other applications they mention (windshields, inside pipes) would be huge (and you wouldn't have to worry about what you might be eating...).</comment>


Content Based CSS - <AUTHOR> http://hitchjs.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/content-based-css-hitch-has/

<comment><USER2> Wait, what am I missing?

Red text

with

p span.fast { color: red; }

will work just fine.

Edit: oh, I get it. You want the entire
 tag to be red when the span starts part way through. Why not put a class on the
? It seems crazy counterintuitive to select elements backwards like that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes in trivial cases you might put a class on the P element. But what about when you have dynamic updates to the DOM? If I have 15 P elements in a collection and not all have content (think of a discussion thread and comments) - how would I specify which P elements to style vs. those I don't want styled?

The ability to style based on content of the selector is powerful in this case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is a sorely missed feature but there's already discussion to support this within CSS. The idea seems to be around having an identifier within the selectors to mark which one is actually getting its properties changed. Something like this:

$p span.fast { color: red; }

In this case the parent is styled because it contains span.fast and the $ is the identifier .

<http://davidwalsh.name/css4-preview>

I've never understood what amounts to an incredibly useful feature was never considered before.

<comment><AUTHOR> (one of the authors) We agree with you. Yes it is being discussed. But you can do it now with Hitch. Our goal with Hitch isn't necessarily to create a new standard, as much as it is to influence the standards to move more quickly. Likewise with browser vendors.

I read in that blog article you mentioned :local-link. Hitch also supports this but with even more ability: <http://hitchjs.com/describe/bkardell.links/1>

We'd love all the feedback we can get. Thanks for taking a look.

<comment><USER4> (the other author) It is definitely worth noting too that this was first proposed and seriously discussed well over a decade ago now. The subject selector is inherently less powerful than the original (has) proposal, but even that got pushed out to selectors level 4 and (if you keep an eye on the lists) there is a very real possibility that it may get shoved to selectors 5.

There are legit reasons for this, don't get me wrong - putting this natively in the browser opens a different can of worms. With Hitch, you "opt-in" and have the option to choose the features that you need. This means that the vast majority of sites can benefit from things that are problematic for the paradoxically hard cases (like the HTML living draft, single page edition with 135k+ and counting elements) -- and we think that is a good thing :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm struggling to figure out how this works. All of the functionality reminds me of SASS/LESS pre-processors - is it essentially doing what the LESS framework does and (post) processing the CSS on the client side, or is it doing something more magical than that?

Also: the "fork me on github" and repository links are all not working / broken. FYI

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for taking a look. We'll get on those links (thanks for that! ).

Hitch is quite a bit different than Sass/LESS. I wrote about this here: [http://clint-hill.com/2012/05/06/changing-how-css-works- hitc...](http://clint-hill.com/2012/05/06/changing-how-css-works-hitch/)

Essentially Hitch looks to add behavior to CSS where Sass/LESS looks to make writing CSS easier. We love Sass/LESS and don't believe it's a competition with the libraries.

<comment><USER5> So I'm curious if you say it 'hitches/intercepts' the css of the browser, why not implement the proposed spec as is, instead of a custom function ie: '-hitch-has' that way at least if the spec does get approved then sites using hitch benefit from already following the spec.

Obviously the spec might change and there's no way round that but seems better to hope for the best than to have a custom / branded pseudo-selector. - just a thought.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a very good thought. We struggled with that during the development of -hitch-has() and a few others. Ultimately we landed on the position of getting an implementation out there that was functionally equivalent.

CSS Selectors 4 (<http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-selectors4-20110929/#subject>) points out a syntax that is currently using "$". But that has also been suggested as "!" in the past. It's a tough thing to get nailed down, but we decided we'd rather not wait to have the functionality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very nice. But does it react dynamically when I update the DOM?

One of the reason we do not have the subject selector or :has() yet is that it is very hard to implement efficiently for dynamic updates. In the general case with :has(), you have to check the whole document for every DOM change.

<comment><USER4> Yes, Simon, yes it does :)

In certain cases you have to check the whole DOM, in others not. We make our best effort to not if we don't have to, or at least to only do it once from up high in the tree if DOM changes are hot and heavy.

Is it efficient enough? So far it seems to be - but on a paradoxically hard page (like the HTML5 living standard, single page edition) with the wrong query, maybe not. But that's ok because a whole lot (far the majority I think) of Web pages should perform reasonably.

<comment><USER6> > but on a paradoxically hard page (like the HTML5 living standard, single > page edition) with the wrong query, maybe not.

Yeah, I use that page as a crash-test too :)

Anyway, I haven't dived in the source yet but I'm very interested in how this is implemented. How much can you hook into the browser's selector engine / how much functionality do you have to duplicate? (I took over the cssselect project for WeasyPrint, but it is in Python without dynamic updates so the context is very different.)

<comment><USER7> We'll have to write up an article about how it works. I'm sure we'll be iterating on the source quite a lot now that we have a nice working set of things...

Essentially though, we look at the modification to narrow down the potentially matching rules, then we use querySelectorAll/matchingfns at the appropriate spot in the tree. Each selector (like :-hitch-has) then has a filter function which merely returns true/false (just like jquery) and based on that we toggle an associated class on the element and the rest is just the browser's native CSS doing what it does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Fix: content based Javascripted css</comment>