How to launch in a month, scale to a million users

[ljlolel]

http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/how-to-launch-in-a-month-scale-to-a-million-users

[revorad]

We implemented a library that could create complicated AJAX interactions by writing 0 javascript, instead just adding a few extra HTML tags to code.

I don't understand what this means. Can you please explain how this works?

[gregdetre → revorad]

It's a clever idea:

- In your html, you annotate objects (e.g. a button) with the '.actionable' class

- Then provide a set of arguments in the html alongside, e.g.

        <div class="kwargs">
            <!-- replace #money with the output from /user/3/money/create -->
            <input name="type" value="replace" />
            <input name="target" value="#money" />
            <input name="url" value="/user/3/money/create" />
        </div>

- The library then parses the html of .actionable objects, and automatically creates the relevant jQuery bindings for you. In other words, you define the behavior in html, without having to write any custom javascript.

We're experimenting with a few ways of extending this on Memrise (Spencer Davis gets most of the credit here). It's early days, but we're an ajax-heavy site, and devolving certain kinds of basic, repetitive functionality to html feels natural and simple. And, by adding new handler types to the library, it becomes much, much easier to create reusable widgets that we can sprinkle throughout the site.

P.S. Currently, most of this work is still on a development branch that will be live within a couple of days.

[imwilsonxu → gregdetre]

Pls correct my if I'm wrong.

I see the idea: 1) Write htmls (with some rules, e.g. add '.actionable' class) 2) Library turn them to js codes.

Benefits: 1) Write zero js codes. 2) Make basic and repetitive functionalities eaiser.

But, just wondering, why don't you wrap codes which deal with basic and repetitive functionalities into js functions then reuse them, but write a library to turn htmls codes to js codes?

My question is, html has its job and js has its, too. Is it a good idea to mix them?

[gregdetre → imwilsonxu]

It's a good question. I don't think I'll have an informed opinion until we've experienced what it's like to work in this way for a while.

But:

- Joseph Perla's suggestions are usually good

- It just feels better to me... Maybe because it's easier to auto-generate html (e.g. from a Django template). Maybe because now many of our pages won't need any javascript. Maybe because all the custom logic is in one place rather than spread over the html and the javascript. Maybe because writing javascript is harder than html :)

[gregdetre → gregdetre]

See:

https://github.com/jperla/pebbles

https://github.com/memrise/pebbles

[rjd → revorad]

Yeah the whole paragraph is worded poorly. IMO it reads either one of these scenarios:

1) A library that dynamically generated JS for him instead of writing it himself. So probably some scaffolding tool.

2) Server side was returning HTML and not JS

But TBH I didn't really get the paragraphs meaning

[ljlolel → revorad]

Okay, I just released the docs:

http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/write-bug-free-javascript-wi...

[iamelgringo]

The much more important question is, how does one get a million users. Most startups never figure that out. Focus on that, scale later.

[endlessvoid94]

The influx of posts about "how to scale" is noticeable. Are more startups having this need? Or are more of them prematurely optimizing?

[guimarin]

Nice post Joe. Good to see you sharing some of that knowledge.

[pandeiro → guimarin]

I found it helpful as well.