Hacker News Reader

Comment by paolomaffei | Hacker News Reader

"A hash function is any well-defined procedure or mathematical function that converts a large, possibly variable-sized amount of data into a small datum"

Hashify is not really a hash, is it?

View on HN

No hashify is not really a hash function. Since a hash function takes large data to small data it is implicitly not invertible. Hashify's URLs obviously are.

End users are given bit.ly URL with a hash.

Splitting hairs because it's closer to a common understanding, but bit.ly URLs aren't hashes they are just alphanumeric IDs.

The difference is that AFAIK there's no algorithm to take a URL (plus or minus a username) and give you a bit.ly ID, short of looking it up at bit.ly.

And the relationship is this: 'path' element of bit.ly URLs are keys in a key->value mapping (where the value is your target URL), and one of the best implementations of a key->value mapping is a hash-table. (At least, it's good for in-memory implementations... I suppose that on disk something a little more elaborate may be called for?)

Historically, the authors of Perl and Ruby (and WP tells me, Common Lisp?) decided to confuse the interface with the implementation, and use "hash" or "hash table" to refer to the mapping, and not ever Perl hacker has a Computing Science degree, so now we live in a world of people who think that "hash" means the thing that bit.ly does for you.

Once again, Larry Wall Ruins Everything. :P

In Common Lisp, it's not interface for mapping but really an hash table as some internal details of hash table implementation are exposed by the interface.

encode.me & base64.me are taken, but encodify.me is not. Doesn't have the same ring as hashify.me, though.

abuse.me may be a better alternative... ;-D

I love this little hack. Sure, it may have no practical purpose; but it gave me great joy to see this. I'm still smiling.

It's probably being purchased by someone right now anyway.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com