Yeah people were showing off something very like this on YouTube a week or two ago. And that’s actually the second time I’ve seen these. I think you got scooped bro.
I came here to see if anyone is selling them. I don’t have a printer.
If you read the post, you'll see that OP was inspired by a similar design (which is linked as an embedded YT video) but designed his own to fit his other needs, i.e. making the back part a tray.
Article clearly says that he saw the existing ones and decided to tweak it for his use case? He didn't say he invented and patented it. Weird thing to complain about.
One must ask themselves why a REST testing tool has venture capital and needs to be closed source (despite their website proudly claiming "Open source"). I'll pass on installing this onto my computer.
> closed source (despite their website proudly claiming "Open source")
HTTPie CLI has been open-source for a decade. HTTPie Desktop has yet to be open-sourced. We first want to get the product, architecture, and codebase somewhat stable. As the README says, we use the GitHub repo to host releases and issues.
> You gave this exact same answer to me in your Discord a year ago. If nothing sketchy is going on why not just open source the thing?
We appreciate your interest, but we never gave an ETA. I do regret having made the intention public, though.
> At a minimum you should remove the banner at the bottom of the page claiming it's open source.
That’s a good point. As I wrote in another comment below: I’ve now updated the website template not to show the image with the slogan on this page. Thanks for the feedback.
Good on you for altering the page. I very much hope to see the desktop client become open source soon, as I would very much like to use it. Best of luck with the project.
I don't understand; why do you think it is "sketchy" to try to make a living out of software?
(For reference, I work as a software engineer and am also the author of a popular open source project which I give away for free and have put thousands of hours into.)
>I don't understand; why do you think it is "sketchy" to try to make a living out of software?
I don't think the original comment meant that it is sketchy to make a living out of software. I think the issue is the posturing as open source, having a github repo with no code just to attract devs and look open source-y and even sharing it on HackerNews right after the issues with closed source by Postman too. Feels like an "open source alternative", but not really, hence the sketchy accusation.
> I think the issue is the posturing as open source, having a github repo with no code just to attract devs and look open source-y
As the first paragraph in the README says, we use the GitHub repo to host releases and issues.
Having it on GitHub under the same organization as our other projects that already are open-source is convenient for both us and our users — https://github.com/httpie.
> and even sharing it on HackerNews right after the issues with closed source by Postman too. Feels like an "open source alternative", but not really, hence the sketchy accusation.
The person who shared it is not related to HTTPie.
Given the quality of the discourse here, I almost wish they did not! ;-)
Why everyone is getting their knickers in a massive twist because they have an Electron wrapper that they haven't open sourced is mystifying.
I haven't studied the codebase but I highly doubt they are going to have a separate client implementation for the Electron product vs the CLI! They're just trying to create a nice Electron client, in addition to their well-known CLI, and start a business around it aren't they?
We started httpie/desktop as a separate codebase but are working on unifying it with httpie/cli and our cloud to avoid multiple implementations by extracting a shared runtime that will be used everywhere. One of the interesting challenges here is that HTTPie Desktop is written in TypeScript while the rest is in Python.
Thanks, of course, that makes sense. How are you planning on doing it -- use a language like Rust that can easily be called from both and packaged? Or rewrite the CLI in Typescript?
We have a PoC where the runtime is implemented in Python and the Electron and web apps use it through https://pyodide.org/. Still exploring but looks surprisingly viable.
For creating requests the GUI of postman is way over the top. HTTP is so simple, why not just write that directly in a literate format you can checkin to a repo? For actually running the requests though I agree a gui is nice. I actually use dot-http as an embedded tool in a browser extension. They're still alternatives, just not in the style you're used to.
So is email. The simplicity of a protocol has nothing to do with the complexity of the workflow that produces it.
> why not just write that directly in a literate format you can checkin to a repo?
Because nothing I work on in Postman is something I need to check in to a repo. I need to test HTTP requests, and I've never worked with a code base that had raw HTTP requests in it.
> They're still alternatives, just not in the style you're used to.
The "style" is different enough that entire use cases become impossible.
Let's say I want to copy HTTP response headers out of a log in JSON format. In Postman, I can paste JSON (and various other key-value formats) into the headers field, and it automatically parses it for me.
There are a hundred little conveniences like that that require a good GUI.
It would be a little funny that GitHub, a proprietary code hosting platform, suddenly cares that proprietary software uses it to host bug reports or other assets. This isn't the first project I've seen that is nothing more than a README and exists simply for people to file issues. e.g. there is https://github.com/cursive-ide/cursive
With that said, Codeberg has a strict policy of hosting software licensed under an OSI or FSF approved license.[1] They will actually take down repositories that do not follow this guideline.
at this page, https://httpie.io/desktop, there's a logo that says "open sores, open hearted, open minded." it's misleading, then. at least remove that part in the page.
Can you be more clear? Is the Desktop app going to be open-source in the future? If so, what license?
Do you intend to monetize this product? If so, how?
As a side note: I find it strange that you feel the product is not stable enough to share the code, but apparently stable enough to share the product itself.
> Can you be more clear? Is the Desktop app going to be open-source in the future? If so, what license?
Yes, but have no ETA or license choice yet.
> Do you intend to monetize this product? If so, how?
Yes. We strongly believe in a freemium where both free and premium users are happy. We’ll primarily monetize collaboration and enterprise features without cannibalizing free users. In this sense, we’re inspired by companies like GitHub or Figma. And in our case, free also includes users without an account.
> As a side note: I find it strange that you feel the product is not stable enough to share the code, but apparently stable enough to share the product itself.
Running an open-source project well is not easy and takes resources. Building a great product is hard on its own. Our primary goal is to design and build the best API product possible, so we direct all our energy there for now.
They're not "making an API testing client". They're trying to start something called a "business". People do this to try to get enough of this thing called "money", to pay for the costs in their lives and their family's lives.
If they are based in America, they would be calculating at least, say $200k per year per employee, since they need to pay healthcare etc. So multiply that by the number of employees you want in your business, then add all the other costs, and extend over the period you want the funding to cover.
Nice, thanks for sharing your wisdom. And still insane they need that much money, we all have examples here of businesses that succeeded without having to raise millions of dollars
Ok, but I guess httpie are raising money in an environment where investors are wanting to invest a lot of money, and they thought "why not, it will raise lots of exciting possibilities for the business". So I'm still not getting why there's so much criticism from people in this thread. You'd probably have done the same in their situation.
Yeah, but normally taking money from investors means they want growth and a return on their investment which often skews business decisions to get quick money at some point. This often leads to an enshittified product.
It seems unrealistic to make millions of dollars in short time in return for a simple product that already exists in many variants even for free. So people believe the product will suffer which makes the users suffer.
> Yeah, but normally taking money from investors [...] often skews business decisions [...] This often leads to an enshittified product.
Wow, I'm glad we've got you here to point out that the startup model doesn't work!
I don't understand why this thread on HTTPie has led to so much low quality teenagerish anti-commercial rhetoric; this is far below normal HN standards.
I reacted snarkily because you appeared to be giving a one-sentence criticism of the entire model of startup investment. Doesn't that seem much too large a topic, and too well-established an aspect of modern economies, to dismiss in such a shallow manner?
Is it greedy to accept large amounts of money that an investor offers you? It had never occurred to me to think of it that way. I think of it as being fortunate to be in a position where someone says "I'll give you lots of funding to start a software company". That sounds to me like an exciting opportunity that's definitely worth taking, but apparently you think it's greed?
> "I'll give you lots of funding to start a software company
But in this case there was a mildly successful company that didn't seem to need that much money to fulfill their business plan. That is the direction I was aiming at.
So they took more than they needed (greed) but didn't get it for free, but with expectations from investors that might not align with the original companies goals.
My critique went into the direction of taking more money than your plan needs.
They're not "making a REST testing tool". They're trying to start something called a "business". This has been a prominent feature of human society for many centuries. People do it to pay for their lives and their family's lives.
Because they're trying to make a living from software? And why the fuck, exactly, should they not do that? Reread your comment and perhaps you'll see how insufferably entitled, as well as naive, it sounds.
Students waste a tremendous amount of time learning these things which could be better spent elsewhere.
What if what humanity needs to realize is that language learning is a waste of time, unless you are studying the history of language. There's no reason we shouldn't have only one planetary language, besides the whims of governments and nationalists.
I dream of a advanced designed language that incorporates the best features of existing written and verbal systems. Now that's a goal worth spending time on.
That discards a _lot_ of culture along with it, no?
Learning languages is fun, and the people you can meet (which you wouldn't otherwise) and things you learn about your own native languages is worth it to me.
I just disagree entirely with this. Isn't Esperanto that planetary language? Or possibly even English? Apparently it doesn't scale a 8 billion people, and I'll say that is A Good Thing.
What if what humanity needs is to realize that you don't have to scale to the limits of the planet for something to be worth while.
Maybe the "time better spent elsewhere" should be spent learning that we are all humans with amazing cultural backgrounds, and what could be a better way to engage with others than through language?
I've just been reading way to much history of South America recently to accept this idea, but let's be honest, the entire world is based on this concept. Every time somebody tries to setup a "Planetary Language/Religion/Culture" it comes at the expense of "the others". Fuck this idea.
The most learned language on Duolingo is English, which is as close to a universal language as we have.
I think anything that allows other people to get outside their box and learn more about (and from!) people who don't share the same cultural background is a positive for the world.
Some other interesting things I've noticed is counters are often wrong, sometimes even with insane values such as -1. Replies missing from retweet views, missing search results, people have reported that replies sometimes don't work or never appear.
Re: the counter issue; I've had "2" tweets for at least 5 years. I really have 0 tweets, but they mention if you ever delete tweets in bulk, the counter can be off.
I never really saw how making the counters random helped fight bots.
Anyone who wants to know if their bot armies upvotes are counted can just choose 2000 articles, upvote a random half, then see if the half they upvoted have higher vote tallies than the half they didn't.
No amount of delay, quantizing, or adding noise will defeat that tactic. So why try at all?
I don’t think the technique would be meant to counter blind voting, but rather strategic voting—i.e. counter-voting some particular post down/up with a random member of your bot army every time it’s voted up/down, to keep its count high/low/at some constant value.
I say this, not because it seems like an especially common style of bot to be running, but rather because 1. it would be a rather heavy backend write load on the site if two bots doing this in opposite directions did exist, and ever “clashed” on the same post—and, much more problematically, a never-ending load, as the bots would never be satisfied; and 2. such bots do depend on the exact vote count passing some threshold, so fuzzing votes is a simple way to make such bots confused—not all the time, but probabilistically, enough of the time to make any such “clash” loops eventually quiesce rather than going on forever.
I would imagine that's the cause too. But there are ways to prevent that. It is eventual consistency after all, right? As I mentioned in my other comment, I've had the wrong count for multiple years.
So as someone that potentially would ask you that, here's my thinking. Rust programs are (in my experience) always fast, less buggy (I'm sure you'll immediately scoff at that, but compared to the number of runtime errors I get in JS programs vs Rust I think it's significant), and they don't require massive dependency chains like Python and JS programs.
You could probably solve the things I just talked about with Go or some other new compiled language but the community has settled on Rust and Rust has great features right now that are working, so my thinking when I see something written in Rust is usually relief.
Is that because of the language itself, or because people who develop in Rust right now tend to really like programming, and are likely above-average developers?
I don’t really hate Rust and like what it has done for safety, but it hasn’t really been used widely enough to see what happens if “the masses” start to use it.
It is Rust itself. My Rust programs are less buggy than my C and JS programs, and I'm not smarter when writing Rust. In fact, I'm much lazier.
Where other languages say "you're just a bad programmer and you should feel bad", Rust makes it its own problem, and focuses on preventing such mistakes instead. Rust's infamous learning curve is from enforcing a ton of requirements that ultimately make more robust programs. You have to handle errors. You have to lock mutexes. You have limits on mutability and global state. You have to think about data flow, and can't just make a program that is a web of everything referencing everything else.
Rust is not that new. The masses are already using it. I've worked with Rust noobs, and I've seen "Enterprise Rust". Bad Rust code is still not that terrible. The language limits how much damage noobs can can cause. There's tooling to help with unidiomatic code. Heavy use of dependencies and strictness of Rust's interfaces means noobs can write simple glue code on top of someone else's robust code.
Rust is fantastic for writing robust, secure, high-performance software. Rust is definitely a much, much better C++ in almost every respect. No doubt there.
However, for many problems, the sweet spot of a good-enough static type system and garbage collector - effectively a better Python - is a better fit.
someone posted a thorough benchmark on both compile and run times of rust vs C++ recently. c++ won on almost every test, so it's not as fast as rust people tend to spread.
I've had this idea of starting back at basics and relearning math from the beginning since I never "really" learned it besides memorizing and skirting my way through it in school.
Do you know a good path or book that's suitable for that?
I bought myself a Remarkable 2 and signed up to Khan Academy. Now I'm revising algebra basics and I plan to go as advanced as Khan Academy lets me.
I was really bad at maths in school (UK A Levels). But I'm a successful software developer today. I felt like knowing more advanced maths could make me a better developer and not feel intimidated by a lot of the things I see.
I'm actually enjoying it as well. Maths isn't just something I have to do to get out of school, now it's something I want to do. And it gives me the same satisfaction as solving puzzles like sudoku.
I'd recommend it to anyone. The Remarkable 2 is actually really nice to write on too, since I want to store my notes digitally. And I make so many mistakes when writing, so undo is great.
Thinking of doing the same thing. The last math class I had was at 16, and the most advanced classes was on binary, so not very complex stuff.
I've mostly been winging it for another 16 years and seemingly picked up things here and there. But math is definitely been trial and error, and I definitely do not know the lingo in math, which I'm now starting to feel is a big disadvantage.
also: the remarkable 2 is great, we have one, but the screen broke and the refurbished replacement arrived with a screen that's not functioning correctly at all, making it a unusable device. Good reminder to reach out to them again.
If you don't mind the question how is the Remarkable helping you in this. Just to avoid the clutter of paper? Or does it some how OCR you're handwriting?
I hate the clutter of paper and how hard to organise it is for me. Plus, how messy I am writing on paper and crossing things out all the time.
The Remarkable, at least for me, is good because I can organise my notebooks into folders by certain math lessons or concepts. And I can undo any mistakes, so my notes are clean. Even if I am quickly working something out I am clean it up and make it a good note for future me. The feel of writing on it is much nicer as well versus my laptop's pen or my iPad's pen.
Also, I like that it basically just does notes. There's no Android bullshit, it's just no nonsense note taking. Some competitor tablets have Android and all that baggage.
It can OCR you writing, but I don't know how good that would be for math.
The Remarkable isn't the only tablet that can do this, but it's the one I bought because I like the style and the simplicity of the software.
A similar solution might be https://getrocketbook.com/ RocketBook. It can be a $0 dollar solution if you download their app and then print out the free PDF pages that are pre-formatted.
I have a remarkable 2 and a Microsoft Surface Pro, intended to de-clutter math coursework. Both work, but I found that the real estate on the remarkable was too limited, even though its a great device, so I tried the Surface Pro. I can fit just about any sized work onto it, and you can endlessly scroll down which was something I couldn't figure out on the remarkable. It makes doing math easy or at least takes away some housekeeping which I find really distracting. And saving and organizing work and being able to import and export files is a bonus.
Sorry, out of topic. May I know what's your definition of success?
I've been doing software development for 10 years but success seems to be always on the horizon.
The reason I find them fascinating is that Wildberger doesn't agree with some of the conventional approaches, in particular with the use of infinity and taking limits. This leads him down interesting paths (e.g. Rational Trigonometry and Algebraic Calculus), which (a) show the process of mathematics (exploring, making definitions, building up in different directions, etc.), whilst (b) remaining mostly grounded and approachable (e.g. no appeals to inscrutable lemmas from abstract research areas).
For example, he's recently been making videos about "multisets" (computer scientists would call them Bags), their arithmetic (where "adding" is union, and "multiplying" is pairwise/cartesian product of the elements), and how this generalises: from an algebra containing only empty bags (trivial, but self-consistent; behaves like zero), to bags of zeros (behaves like natural number arithmetic), to bags of natural numbers (behaves like polynomial arithmetic), to bags of polynomials (behaves like polynomials in arbitrarily-many variables) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xoF2SRp194
"The reason I find them fascinating is that Wildberger doesn't agree with some of the conventional approaches, in particular with the use of infinity and taking limits."
So no transfinite ordinal analysis or large cardinals? Hard to take him seriously.
> It's the hypotenuse of a right triangle with legs of length one.
Yes, we can construct such a line segment; but line segments are not numbers.
We don't actually need "legs of length one" (which pre-supposes some system of units); all we need is the ratio of the lengths of the sides. However, finding lengths requires the ability to take square roots, which would either make this a circular definition (e.g. that √2 = √2 / 1), or requires the limit of an infinite process (like Newton's method, or equivalent).
Instead, it's much easier to count the areas of the squares on each leg (1 and 1), and add them together to get the area of the square on the hypotenuse (1 + 1 = 2). No need for lengths, so no need for square roots, so no need for √2.
Wildberger abbreviates 'area of the square on a segment/vector' as the 'quadrance' of that segment/vector (defined as the dot-product with itself). Likewise we can avoid angles by taking ratios of quadrances (e.g. 'spread' is defined via a right-triangle as the quadrance of the opposite side / quadrance of the hypotenuse); together this gives rise to a whole theory of Rational Trigonometry, which gives efficiently computable, exact answers; works in arbitrary fields (except for characteristic two), and with arbitrary dot-products/bilinear-forms (e.g. euclidean, relativistic, spherical, etc.). Here's Wildberger's textbook on the subject http://www.ms.lt/derlius/WildbergerDivineProportions.pdf
no computer can calculate that exact distance, which is kind of Wildberger's point.
Infinities are very interesting but the non-infinite maths have kind of got neglected over the past 100 years. I had to memorize Laplace transforms in college but never heard of Fairey sequences until I watched his videos.
People get upset at him but he's basically just having fun seeing how far you can go in Math without infinity. It's quite interesting to a certain audience (like myself).
I’m reading and like Thomas Garrity’s “All the mathematics you missed (but need for graduate school)” which is this but for people who did a bachelors degree but missed certain areas (or forgot them).
Something else I’ve found extremely useful in getting into maths topics is the Princeton Companion to Mathematics - it doesn’t have exercises but gives excellent overview essays of a wide range of maths topics - expensive to buy (mine was a present) but should be available in academic libraries, say.
I bought and read it (more like, skimmed) and liked it a lot too.
Gives a bird's eye view of math very nicely. Even from a skimming it was very useful to help me understand the gaps I have, and the shape of those gaps, and partially filling them.
3Blue1Brown videos seem like a good resource to use along any book. My experience as a math major (in the distant past) is that the kind of visualization the author shows you is also something you want to imitate in your head when you are learning new concepts. I find things I learned in this level tended to stick in my head 10+ years later, other stuff less.
I should mention focusing on doing a few interesting problems, rather than many not so interesting ones, is also one way to help yourself understand more deeply.
Lots of easy problems is a good way to build up muscle memory, though. IMO the brute-force method of, say, Saxon Math really makes sense for things like basic elementary school algebra and probably intro calculus, where the student is sort of learning the math equivalent of how to walk. Not sure where the switch over ought to be, though.
we tried "Saxon math", Singapore math dimensions, and Beast Academy.
And my impression was that Saxon Math was the worst.
What I mean by worst is that it just make you practice an algorithm by doing lot of repetition but doesn't force you to have a deep understanding or problem solving skill.
Saxon math worked out for me, although we didn’t shop around as far as I remember, so maybe Singapore would have worked fine as well.
My experience is that I didn’t really feel like I was memorizing an algorithm. Because the problem set includes assignments from all of the old sets, it is hard to memorize all of the algorithms. So you instead memorize the different moves that are allowed and have a general idea of what types of moves might be useful.
I dunno. I went on to do engineery stuff as an undergrad rather than pure math stuff, it seems like a good match because engineering problems are also often in the “no need to be super clever, just don’t mess up” vein, so it could be just a lucky match. This is what I mean by muscle memory — I’ll use the famous names theorems when necessary but sometimes you just need to bash the math until the thing you want is on that side of the equal sign and the other stuff is on the other side.
I think anything that results in
1) actually reading some textbook
2) actually working through problems for a couple hours a week
will compare well to the typical US math education pretty well anyway.
I'm doing this and am starting with Linear Algebra on MIT OCW (taught by Gilbert Strang). My current plan is to relearn Linear Algebra, Calculus, Probability, and Statistics and actually focus on retaining the knowledge in my memory using something like SRS learning. I think planning past that is pointless since by the time I'm done I will have a better ability to plan my future coursework.
I did this same exact thing back in 2010. I used khan academy for it. Started with positive and negative numbers, arithmetic, through trig and algebra.
I like khan academy back in 2010 because all the videos were in one place and you could see everything right there in front of you
I had a similar thought back in 2014. I had only studied the maths required for various engineering courses I’d taken.
So, I decided I wanted to study maths for the maths.
I was in the fortunate position of being able to self fund myself through the Open University (uk based) Maths and Statistics BSc.
One module at a time I’m now on my last module.
There many things I’d studied before (calculus, sequences) and many new to me (group theory, graph theory)
I’ve been doing a similar thing with Brilliant and really enjoying it. It feels like every course is orientated around teaching maths from a problem solving perspective so you actually get why you’re learning stuff rather than teachers just trying to brute force things into your head which unfortunately seems to be the default at schools nowadays.
Do you know a good path or book that's suitable for that?
I've been using Professor Leonard's Youtube video series[1] mostly, along with some of those "workbook" type books by Chris McMullen, and a variety of books with titles like "1001 solved problems in $SUBJECT", "The Humongous Book of $SUBJECT problems", and the like. The nice thing about Professor Leonard is that he has videos on everything starting from pre-algebra, middle-school math, up through Differential Equations. Note that his diff-eq class isn't quite complete but he just announced he's about to start recording new videos to finish that, and he's also going to be starting a Linear Algebra sequence. And he's a great lecturer who does a really good job of explaining things and making them understandable.
I also use Khan Academy sometimes, and stuff on Youtube from The Math Sorcerer[2]. Oh, and of course there is 3blue1brown[3], whose videos are also useful. And for Linear Algebra I've been using Gilbert Strang's OCW videos[4] on Youtube.
FWIW, I've evolved the way I study math, and what I do now works for me, even though it's 100% not the way you'd ordinarily see suggested. That is, I watch math videos fairly passively and don't work problems at the same time and treat it like being in a class per-se. I used to do the thing of treating it like a class, pausing the video to work examples, and what-not, and that does work. But it's very slow and tedious.
Now, I just watch the videos, acknowledging that I won't absorb everything and that I also need to work problems for long-term retention. So now what I do is watch passively to a certain point (which I determine fairly subjectively) then I stop with the videos for a while, pick up a textbook or one of those "workbook" type books I mentioned earlier, and work problems for a while. Then I review the parts that I find myself struggling with. I'm also just now starting to add "creating Anki cards" as something I do during that second pass.
Once I start getting a decent Anki deck built up, I'll be reviewing that regularly as well to help build retention. I only create cards for things that seem amenable to rote memorization, and TBH, I'm still working on figuring out what things are best to include, and how to structure those cards. What I don't intend to do is include specific problems where all I'd be doing is memorizing the answer to a problem. So far it's just formulas and things are are very obvious candidates to be memorized, and "algorithm" things like the "chain rule" from calculus, and similar.
Question for people that read deep into these things. What is the best CPU for the linker stage of compiling? I would assume these high performing single core "gaming" CPUs would do well, but I must admit I care a lot about power efficiency as well. I have a 3900x and love that CPU for nearly everything but waiting on optimized builds.
The problem is that most default linkers don't scale well with core count, and throwing hardware at the problem is kind of a waste of money since single core execution speeds only present marginal gains. If you use a linker like mold instead of ld you'll see orders of magnitude higher performance.
I went Intel 12th gen and I have buyer’s remorse. My next upgrade I’ll go back to AMD. Every 12th gen I’ve touched has little stuttering issues. Last week I was playing around with laptops at the store with 13th gen and they also get random stuttering issues too. A lot of people have said to me they don’t get any issues but going into a store and opening up YouTube with a 4k video and moving the mouse it stops and then continues. The AMD laptops don’t do this at all.
I can't speak to the "best" CPU, but I use a 7950x for rust development work in linux. Its probably overkill - The rust compiler doesn't even feel slow anymore for me on this machine.
