Comment by jdiez17 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdiez17 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm not only criticising their price. I'm writing off this whole thing as a 'joke', because honestly, that is what it looks like. Have you looked at the source code? You should take a look at this[1]. If you say "well, that's not so bad - they don't know how to make two classes with different background colours, but who cares about that? Bootstrap is totally justified", you'll love this little gem[2]. That's right, they're including 265 kilobytes of javascript (and violating jQuery's MIT license in the process, but I'll let that slide) for a form validator.

If you want my honest advice: do not go near this thing. It was built by developers who are either playing a very dark joke on HN or do not have a clue about web development.

The 99$/month price tag is what makes me think it is a joke. I have asked a friend of mine who does freelance web development from time to time and "about a hundred bucks" is what he'd charge for developing a single page built with Bootstrap.

[1] http://launchable.io/assets/application-f12be0d179f7589b0d58... [2] http://launchable.io/assets/application-99f549a279e10ccc7e06...

Really not sure what you're on about here.

First off, trying to use their inclusion of Bootstrap as a negative comes off as elitist nonsense. Second, the file you are discussing is actually 131KB uncompressed and 43KB when gzipped. No issues there.

This sounds to me like a serious case of "I hate this because someone else is making money off of it instead of me".

That's strange - I took another look at the JavaScript and it is indeed 131KB when uncompressed. I could have sworn it was 265KB last night.

Anyway, including Bootstrap to use two containers with different background colours is a lack of professionalism. Why can't you make it yourself? I'd argue that it would take an experienced web developer approximately the same time to do it without Bootstrap.

I don't really hate it because he's making money off of it, it's just that it feels like a ripoff to me. For $99/month [1] you can get a new website, specifically designed for you by a web developer, every month.

[1] it looks like he has realised $99/month is a joke.

I'm deadly serious. The 2 points you consider evidence of me "not having a clue" are including Bootstrap and jQuery? Are you serious?

It's the first iteration - I've included the entire bootstrap lib for speed and ease whilst developing a UI and the entire jquery lib because it just ships with rails. As for the MIT license stripping, that is a weird one, because I'm simply using the jquery-rails gem, no tampering on my part. I'll look into why it strips that out.

Maybe you don't get the "1st iteration" idea, but to me it should look like shit. I just want feedback ASAP. And guess what, it worked. Thanks for yours.

Yes, I am serious.

Maybe I don't get the "first iteration" idea, but it should not look like shit. Maybe that's just me, but if I'm making a website to attract users I'd rather make it, you know, attractive.

>I just want feedback ASAP. And guess what, it worked. Thanks for yours.

You're welcome.

Violating the MIT license by stripping the license text, right?

Yes.

Point taken :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com