Man, I liked OpenRouter but most models run so much slower on OR that I had to switch to other solutions. Is there a reason for horribly slow Meta Llama 2 models?
I think this is the key reason why going hybrid native with a lightweight WebView was needed at Notion. If there was a ProseMirror-like standard library for rich text editor available for crossplatform, with:
- Native editor for IOS
- Native editor for Android
- Native editor for Web
- Electron/Native desktop, etc...
These editor can share code via a clean architecture inspired state plugin hyerachy that's swappable (i.e, a shared provider that swap out state and data routing per platform). Then with metro or esbuild you can selectively prune the code branch. The UI can be done in RN-web if lazy or straight up native code. It doesn't matter at this level.
Then, anyone who wanted to clone Notion can consume this component in their RN app. However, this is against Notion interest atm afaik, since Notion must keeps its advantage (make it harder for people to clone Notion). I'd argue it will try to shutdown such an initiative until it found a better way to have an edge on these competitor (or maybe shift to a new market)
I don’t know how we could possibly shut this initiative down, but I guess I should try!
For us to build such a project without backing it with a webview would probably take an order of magnitude more engineers working on the editor than we have today.
Agreed. I would even call such initiative premature optimization, with unknown gain compared to just optimize the WebView component in the native shell if that's ever needed. More so for any new startup trying to enter the KMS space in general.
I don't think Notion need to worry about FB. I think Notion might need to be worried about the potential market saturation caused by how easy it will be for a small team of 3 to clone Notion (and all of its integration, API, and so on) on all platform perfectly in a weekends. At that point, it's not the technology bottleneck anymore but more so a battle over branding and minor UX improvement.
I see - I was debating whether it would be cool to reference another project in our documentation. I would say what we are creating is like "NextJS for browser extension development"
Technically, the compiled source published to NPM is MIT licensed (it's minified JS), and the end-user can reverse-engineer it however they like. MIT license does not mean human-readable source afaik :p
^ j/k fyi, since your comment sounded serious so I just wanted to ease the tension. We're planning to open-source the repo, but ATM we have not set up everything to welcome the community yet (CoC, contribution guideline, CI for testing, issue templates, etc...)
BTW, love your passion for open-source and appreciate the criticism (esp your effort in taking a deep look at the stuff we are building). The NPM page is nowhere ready for public view yet. The thought of slapping the TOS and Privacy Policy in the readme is so that if the user installed our CLI and managed to initiate some of the extra undocumented capability, we wouldn't be responsible for any damage to their hardware. But perhaps the MIT license should suffice for that case?
On the other hand, I am asking for feedback on the documentation, so if we can stay on that topic that would be much appreciated :D
My problem with this is that you are asking us for free review of a tool that you claim is MIT, while you are actually keeping the source closed.
Surely you can see the problem with that.
You are also vastly misrepresenting the contents of your ToS here, which actually contain a binding arbitration clause and this unbelievable gem: "you agree not to [...] disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the SERVICE"
> you claim is MIT, while you are actually keeping the source closed.
I do not get your argument. The MIT license is not a consumer-right protection license, it is a license made to protect us, developers, from having to deal with hostile actors. Nowhere in the license does it says the developer is required or responsible for disclosing the source in a human-readable form. It simply says the user can use it for free, that the developer is not responsible and there is no warranty.
> this unbelievable gem
Why is it an unbelievable gem? I do not see why it is different from MIT's "IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE."? Also, thanks for parsing thru the TOS - I created it from a template, thus haven't gotten around to actually making sure it makes sense (i.e a TOS is made to protect me and my company so it made sense to me to just keep anything that would prevent legal trouble).
I am a developer, not a lawyer. I also do not understand why it was necessary for you to talk down to me? As strangers, your absence of patience, kindness, and courtesy makes you sound hostile, and frankly rude.
I can appreciate your passion for open source. Perhaps you feel that your behavior is justified because you are protecting something near and dear to your heart. However, please recall that we are both flesh and blood human beings, we make mistakes, we fix them, and we both deserve respect and decency.
All in all, I hope to see you with more kindness in the future. Thanks in advance!
P.s: technically, I can be a fridge. But then again, you would be being rude to a fridge :p
I am not kind? I did not disparage or misrepresent anything, and I did not make you sign a legal document to read my content either. I pointed out objective problems that you could easily have addressed at any point instead of doubling down.
Instead you are choosing to take offense, personally call me names, invent a flat-out crazy definition for "open source", stated that there's no difference between the MIT license and your consumer-hostile ToS (licenses are not ToS!), and try to justify your 17 pages of legalese (the most far-reaching I have ever read) by the fact that you are "not a lawyer". You know what not-lawyers don't do?
You could have "shown kindness" a few comments back by fixing the metadata of your NPM package, give any indication that the ToS were a mistake and would be fixed, or offer any sign at all that you were in fact "a flesh and blood human being" who fixes their mistakes.
I am not making you appear like a copyright troll. Feel free to stop at any time.
EDIT: works now. Thanks for the article, I'm also working on a dev-tool product and we are considering open-sourcing it fully. However, there is also a problem of making sure the garden is green and welcoming. Is it necessary to prepare everything like a nice Readme, CI/automation to run the tests, and so on so forth? Or what's the minimum do you think?
I’d like to get feedback on the documentation we wrote for our browser extension framework. Anything to add or remove? Are there sections that are too confusing or unclear?
You should put what the requirements are up-front. Only after reading through the file-structure did I understand that your plugin assumes both React and TypeScript is being used for building the extension.
It'd be great if the documentation could start with showing how is different from the many other similar solutions that came before you, to make users understand the value proposition of your framework a bit better.
I went to the main-page to see what the main product you were building, and seems the browser extension framework is the main product. I'm not sure if the Pricing is placeholder pricing or not, but $256 per user per month sounds like a lot for a extension framework, but maybe I'm not the target audience, I've only published a few browser extensions as an individual.
It is indeed placeholder pricing - I am not entirely sure how to structure this business yet, really wanted to lean toward an open-source model with premium support (hence the 256 pricing tag on premium support).
The framework itself is free. Only if the user require hands-on contracting work (i.e, a demo of integrating with their in-house framework) would it trigger the support price.
Your feedback indicates I should separate the "enterprise-support" pricing from the "Developer" or Team pricing, and also make it less expensive (certainly lower than $256). Since the base framework is free (like Next.JS), how much would you as a solo developer pay for a feature that allows you to test your extension without having to submit and wait for the chrome/edge webstore review?
Love the work on the webpack/babel configuration - really streamlined the crossplatform design system process. Do you have any thought on adding animation? So far looking through the source, I saw a couple code forked from NativeBase for animation that used the primitive Animated API. Wonder if the tamagui/core workflow could bundle reanimated2 and moti with it - will do an experimentation this weekends
I use reanimated in the app that Tamagui was born from and am friendly with Fernando, would love to get Moti support. Feel free to reach out to me or chat on the discord.
https://openrouter.ai/models/fireworks/mixtral-8x7b-fw-chat
Chat playground:
https://openrouter.ai/playground?models=fireworks/mixtral-8x...