What is Digg?73 Comments
- JRMillion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14arn't users not supposed to link to their own blogs?
- hijinks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13non-lame blog link here
http://www.backbase.com/#home/home.xml[0] - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I think it's free - not open source. They sell this product for a LOT of money, so there Is NO WAY this is open source. If you want their full AJAX thingy for a one-processor system, it is about $2,000.
If you want it for a dual proc system (like my server is) it is $4,000.
If you want it with two years worth of upgrades, it is $6,000.
I'm sorry, but $6,000 is out of my price range. I'm just a small non-profit kind of hobbiest. And I'm not sure I even want to touch the "free" version of something that is simultaneously being sold for THOUSANDS of dollars. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Dude, shut up!
If they just called it a "javascript library", nobody would dish out thousands of dollars for it!
Don't make me send the Web2.0 AJAX mafia after your ass! :P - nathos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7No Safari support or graceful degradation.
- hijinks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7please don't link to your blog.. most of the time they get hammered way too quickly
- mcewen98, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Why does 37signals have to "watch out"? Backbase's product is a javascipt library, 37signals created Ruby on Rails, which is an entire web application framework that includes an easier way to write javascript in ajax like ways (RJS), and is not a stand alone javascript library. Unless 37signals has a product I'm not aware of, these are two completely different things. Now if the article means to reference prototype or scriptaculous which I think is included with RoR, and whose creators are contributors to RoR, then it should say that instead.
- _jinx_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If they are going to dish out $1k's of dollars for it, it's there loss and a stupid decision on the end users standpoint, when the developer should learn how to do it him self. Seriously, this is great work.. but this is not something I would pay for when I could write it myself, knowing my code 20x better. So when there is a problem... faster fixes.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Be care 37s, you have competition from a website that takes 30 seconds to load all of it's bloated *****.
- Chapter80, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Baaah. no licensing terms to be found on the Backbase website. Yeah, open source, but can you use it in a real product?
Time to keep looking. - paularms, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4What is with these people never supporting Safari with their AJAX stuff until enough people complain?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Okay, this is very lame. False info posted, blog linking, duplicate story (see thomasleeiv's comment), inaccurate, and just another blurb about an over mentioned topic, AJAX. There are two things to report this topic as. Not to mention that the use of AJAX has been around long before someone coined a silly little acronym for it and it got all this hype over night.
- Chapter80, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Thanks for the lead on 37signals. I'll definitely check THAT one out.
- _jinx_, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4My feelings, like Bryan said but a bit nicer... Until Microsoft, IBM or someone big makes a real framework.. these libraries could be written and understood faster then looking through and studying someone elses code.
- Radhruin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5No digg. This seems pretty worthless.
Community edition cannot be used for commercial purposes, so its usefulness is limited.
Non-community edition is super expensive.
Cannot view any demos with Opera, as this browser is unsupported.
Also, like someone previously said, this is not competition for RAILS (37Signals' product) as its A) not the same thing, and B) not free (as in speech). Perhaps the submitter was thinking about prototype or script.aculo.us, the javascript libraries included with Rails? Both of those support Opera, are free/open source, and do plenty of awesome things, so I'd say that this link is pretty darn worthless indeed. - mstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree in some ways. Its a fine line. I don't see why not when they actually write something about it. His post had links to other info and not just a "check this out" non-informative piece. Its a fine line between providing direct links. Some of the motivation in posting links is the ability to generate traffic for yourself. There is a trade off for us of course.
- BryanTheCrow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The technology is available to develop fully accessible applications that scale-back well. The fault lies not on what's available today, but on the developers.
- BryanTheCrow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@Yossarian78
I wouldn't be talkin' ***** if I hadn't been using it for years before the craze. I didn't make a big deal out of it, because I didn't think it was a big deal. You're right in some respect though... Had I the proper forsight, I would have made a big deal out of it and made a killing selling my source by marketing it with trendy catch-phrases... Now why didn't I do that? .... OH YEAH! JavaScript is FREE for anyone to steal as they please! I just didn't think it would be possible to dupe someone into paying me money for something that's freely available... Boy was I wrong! - mickael, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It does not seem to be open source (Provided with source but not open source)
- mephitix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Backbase is nice, but it's very weird. I used to do some prototyping of applications using their Community Edition a while back (yeah, it's not exactly 'new'). You develop applications using BXML, an xml structure that they specify through their own schema and namespaces. The only problem is that NONE of the community edition stuff (at least back when I was working with it) had Ajax capabilities. The "XML Server Edition", which costs like $4,000 (yikes!!) has that stuff. So basically all you're getting through the Community Edition is some nice DHTML packages.
- BryanTheCrow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, they're going to try to trump it with Flex, if they market it well enough. Flex kicks ass!
@Quarks: Well said... I couldn't agree more. - yongfook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2safari not supported. Very disappointing. As a web developer who uses a (and loves) mac, I can never understand why these big AJAX apps don't support safari - it's a perfectly capable browser.
- Quarks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Oh God, when will it end.
Make a nice, solid, fast web-app in CGI/Perl and HTML, nobody is interested.
Make a web-app using Ruby on Rails and AJAX, use rounded corners, gradients, XHTML and CSS, a color scheme to make your eyes vomit, Google Ads, whitespace galore, and a big-ass dorky font.
Give it a "Web2.0" name and slap a "Beta" sticker on it and companies will pay you thousands of dollars for it.
A few years ago, everyone wanted a Flash site. Now, everyone wants AJAX. Nevermind that everyone asking for it has no idea what it is and how it should be used. I’m just waiting for the Adobe/Macromedia team to include an AJAX template into Dreamweaver and watch it all blow up. (I love AJAX for its appropriate uses, just not everything)
It’s not revolutionizing anything.
They tried it like 10 years ago. It failed. It still fails. There are so very few instances where it’s useful.
And to everyone saying AJAX is here to stay: offcourse it is, it's been here for years.
Stop worshipping every Web2.0 (buh, i hate that word) website out there, appreciate the good stuff for what it does.
No, this isn't a flame, just an observation. - halfway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I agree with Bryan, I recently got a copy of the Flex Beta, and it is really nicely done. Clean interface, guides on getting started. It seems to be a really promising program that could help many people get into web developing like AJAX, and also educate others on what it really is all about.
- mcewen98, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The fact that this is still on the homepage, I think, proves some of my annoyances of digg. Digg is only as good as its users are intelligent. The fact that this story has over 200 diggs and is still on the front page (with a completely wrong description of the subject, and a link to a blog post) shows the flaws. I know there's always going to be exceptions and things are going to fall through the cracks, but even so, kevin rose dugg this...
- joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Academy Awards are over. You aren't allowed to make stupid brokeback references anymore. ;o)
- _jinx_, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Framework isn't really the word to use man, seriously.. I mean Library is barely the term. This is code that does cool stuff and you use it... thats it. I am not doubting the skill it takes to build this at all.. I am simply stating knowledge of DOM and Asychronous Javascript is all you need with a little bit of creativity. Hoenstly you are much better coding out the site yourself with your database then relying on some other so called framework that is nothing but great application's and not a freamwork.
What we should do, is build the classes and wrappers, share them and build something from that! Then when enough is collected... with a community it could then be called a true framework. - BryanTheCrow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@a1programmer
Not by my standards... Or by the standards of any other decent programmer for that matter... - kobs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Uhm, Ruby on Rails != AJAX. Last time I checked, a 37signals employee created Ruby on Rails, not the AJAX method
- a1programmer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It takes much more than a "basic" knowledge of javascript to build a framework like this.
- adam.lindsay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What does this have to do with 37s? Rails mainly uses the prototype and script.aculo.us libraries. At best Rails simply has helper functions to generate the javascript. No reason the same couldn't be done with this library.
Maybe you felt mentioning 37s would get you to the front page. Ah, well it did, so crafty writing. - BryanTheCrow, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3lol @Seumas
- BryanTheCrow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@a1programmer
My most extensive use was in ReadyConference Plus - Premiere Global Service's web conferencing solution (I'm the lead developer). If you want to see it, you'd need to sign up for a Client ID & password. (http://collab.premiereglobal.com/us/en/products/service_000001.asp) The site makes use of asynchrounous calls & DHTML in several places where it makes sense to (upload progress bar, deleting presentations without needing to reload the page, chat, sending invitation emails, etc...). - mstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree, its a complete shame. I understand that only 3% to 8% people use Safari so its easier for developers and such to ignore their needs. I wish this could change.
- mikesmullin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1UPDATE: The license is NOT OPEN-SOURCE (sorry for that--i misspoke in a big way) but the focus is Backbase and some of the demos that are rivaling our beloved open-source competitors.
There are other references to Backbase but this is obviously still new to some people or it wouldn't be getting dugg :) - a1programmer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@BryanTheCrow
Well, that's the thing. Depending on who you're talking to, and the context, "basic" javascript can mean different things. I really doubt that everyone who reads digg is a decent programmer as well.
I do see where you're coming from though. So you have some examples of your AJAX work? - BryanTheCrow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@mikesmullin
I don't think anyone here's trying to say they "invented AJAX". Nor are we trying to say the technology sucks. We're just saying that we've been using the technology since long before Adaptive Path coined the term for it, and are rather sick of people calling it new. - misterjangles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A good programmer would know how to write their own AJAX javascript library. A great programmer, on the other hand, will recognize when it's more efficient to use a pre-written library instead. I'm not saying backbase is the one to use, but hopefully you get my point.
I have to say, though, that backbase is way over-priced. I would consider paying $2k for a developer license that allows me to use and distribute the code in my own apps. They put together a great framework and I respect the effort. But paying that price for every single server, in essence paying a $2k license for every app and. If you put this code into your own app, you would have to pay $2k for another license if you ever wanted to sell your app.
New-school product. Old-school price model. - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Ugh. Can we please stop with the links to personal blogs, and just post the direct link!?!
Digg is not a cheap way to get people to your lame blog. Just post the news directly. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Please note, dhtml looks alot like a client based application. I think most developers would agree with, and have, to the fact that HTML is old and needs to be overhauled from the ground up to support THE REAL WEB 2.0!! Like xul, xaml, webservices, etc
- mikesmullin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Linking to a blog first A) rewards the user for posting and B) allows more control over the first impression which is important because it explains what you are about to see.
I love it when other users blog about first, because then I can read the bite-size version (with links, markup, thumbs, or clips) and find out whether it's really worth reading the full 3-page article on the source. - chesterjosiah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed. Plus it's too slow. Check out the live demo. Interesting, but it's just too slow.
- _jinx_, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One thing to remeber is, the reason this makes home page often is because there is somethign to talk about between devs, just dont read it, dont comment just move on...
- nitsuj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Safari is only just getting there as a browser. Besides that it's a simple case of numbers. Find the % of IE users followed by Firefox then Mozilla and you'll have a picture of where a company will direct their resources - at least to begin with. It's as simple as that.
- feshmania, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I hate buzzwords like "AJAX" I really do. Why don't people just go learn JavaScript???
- halfway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If someone were to put the link to their blog, I would like to see them have at least a review, a well-thought out description - maybe some screen shots too. Blogs are a source of income for some people, and I respect people are trying to get some traffic to make a small amount of money, but I just don't want to see someone say "I found this, check it out yo!" Then have the link posted. Or if the article that is linked here on digg was written by the person who owns the blog - that's is completely fine.
Other than that I don't think people have to say over and over again "linked to a blog, no digg". If you don't like it then don't digg it. We don't want to hear something about 15 other people have already said. If you don't digg it then keep that to yourself and don't click the button. How bout that eh? - fibr3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Taken from the 'editions' section under FAQ - ironically i can't give you a direct link after losing it and NOT BEING ABLE TO USE MY BACK BUTTON...
========================================================================
Who can use the Community Edition?
It can be used for non-commercial and non-institutional purposes. See the Supplemental License Terms for details. To following scenarios illustrate the use of the Community Edition:
* Non-commercial and non-institutional projects. Non-commercial use means that the software may not be used on any web site or application that sells, advertises, or otherwise promotes revenue-bearing products or services of any kind. Non-institutional use means that the software may not be used for any web site or application that facilitates the operation of any institution, including but not limited to corporations, partnerships, sole proprietorships, governments, or educational institutions.
* Educators or students looking to learn or teach Backbase.
* Bloggers who want to showcase Backbase applications on their personal blog. - Zontor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No dig - links to your own blog -- mastah!
- uptown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1...so when their server goes down due to the digg onslaught, does that make it brokeback?
- NeoMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you have something interesting to say, then fine link your blog. If you're going to be a moron and write a single paragraph with a link to the REAL site then no digg from me!
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is