Req – An HTTP Scripting Language
andrewpillar.com
andrewpillar.com
Glancing at the code, seems easy enough.
If the Author is around, I'm curious if that'd be a supported use case? The README makes no note.
- Change the symbol -> to | because it's more similar to how pipe works in shell than how -> works in C++/PHP.
- Introduce a second way to do string literals, so :hello is equivalent to "hello". Then change encode so that its second argument is a string instead of a mysterious name. (Read the docs but didn't actually understand how it worked under the hood. Is it just hardcoded?) So `encode json` becomes `encode :json` (or `encode "json"` if the user prefers).
This is a pretty cool project.
I get asking that question when you're talking about lesser known tech, but when someone writes an entire language themselves, it's a bit disingenuous to think they don't know about two of the largest languages on the planet. It'd be more reasonable to ask "What advantages does this have over the standard library in python or ruby?". A similar question would be looking at ruby or python and wondering why you should use those when perfectly good ANSI C exists.
As to the second part of my statement, I hope that's fairly obvious, but I'll lay it out explicity: Not all code needs to be a product vying for market share to be useful. Some code is for the author to learn from, some code is for making art, some code is for shits and giggles to throw into the world on a lark because someone else might do something with it, or learn something from it, or use it to solve that _exact_ bug they've been having in something just cause they see you did something similar a different way.
A tool written in Python or Ruby will always be most usable by Python or Ruby developers. A tool written in Go and compiled to a single binary has no such barrier to entry.
during the pandemic i have started building a declarative (YAML) http client for testing APIs which will integrate into CI/CD like GitHub
drop me a line if you’re interested
Very occasionally I bump up the font size a notch in Chrome to make things a little easier when I am tired. Even HN occasionally.
I've not had to bump it up _three_ notches before now. 12px serif body text in 2022? Ouch :-/
Hacker News, and in fact this comment are 12px. Something's up with this site that's making it extra tiny.
Update: Proof - https://jdon.at/ZVirr2
What's extremely interesting is that on my laptop, HN is 12px when Firefox is full screen, but 13.33px when Firefox only uses the left or right half of my screen.
Yeah -- this is a common strategy for mobile rendering which on the face of it seems quite counterintuitive, but actually isn't.
Though this comment is not 12px Serif, it is 12px sans-serif (and Verdana at that). Which makes a really significant difference with small fonts.
It's also not body text on a blog article; this size of text is really too small for long-form reading (which admittedly includes all of my bloviating HN comments, natch)
I'll get there one day I suppose and should enjoy it while it lasts, but for now most stuff really does look comically large and content-less.
The website uses Fira Sans, which is very condensed (as much as you can without having to stretch the characters, in fact).
You can see that the code snippets on the website "look" much larger even though they're also 12px, since they are set in Courier New.