Don't know the point of this post, but anything that's code or output of code gets my vote over the "everything I need to know about startups I learned in Kindergarten" submissions.
Why support the lesser of two evils when you don't need either?
Because we can only upvote.
And not-upvote.
Re:Preview: River of News in JSON
by jacob_riis on Sunday December 05, 2010 @07:30PM
(#1973266)
It was not XML previously.
I will write a blog post soon explaining, but I wanted people to have a look first.
I believe it's totally newsworthy, but of course YMMV.
The blog post I'll probably end up reading if it makes it to the front page of HN. I don't often look at the new stuff (sorry, but it's true).
But as-is? It's a 1-1 duplicate of the main page (though it does separate by source) in a different format, and a strange extra layer in the JSON:
{ updatedFeeds:{updatedFeed:[{feed item}]}, metadata:{} }
Why updatedFeeds.updatedFeed[]? There's nothing else in updatedFeeds.edit:
There's also the inconsistency that updatedFeeds.updatedFeed[x].item may be an array or an object, depending on how many items are by that source. Inconsistency == increased edge-case code == less happy users of the data.
It seems a barely-thought-out representation of the data, nothing I'd want other people to see.
Was there XML previously? They're the same thing, they just use different parsers.
Was there no programmatic access previously? How about a link to where they announce this omg-new-way-to-read-News-River? Scraping looks like it would be simple enough, so I doubt lack-of-JSON-access prevented people from writing anything for changing News River's display.
Is this meant to be public? Will it go away? Why do we want News River in the first place? What is the point of this post?