Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This isn't called webscript.io. It's called "webscript". It's beyond pretentious. The words "web" and "script" are extremely generic and common in software development. To put them together and not only use it as a product name but try to introduce it as a new term rubs me the wrong way. (The phrase "Webscripts are a fast and easy way to receive those webhooks" gives me the idea that they intend to do just that.)

Going past that, the video takes way too long. The best parts of the API are quite similar to request and express in node.js land. The website is vanilla Bootstrap with a few supported customizations to make it stand out more. There's little in it that shows that the team has the level of skills needed to write a platform.



"This isn't called webscript.io. It's called "webscript". It's beyond pretentious."

I have to say I think that's in the eye of the beholder. What's wrong with a simple name for site, even if it has a generic meaning already?

"There's little in it that shows that the team has the level of skills needed to write a platform."

What would you want to see on the site that would show this better? Why does using Bootstrap matter, or was that an unrelated observation?


I agree. I don't think that it's bad to choose a simple name.

In this particular case, I feel that it's generic enough that it can be confusing/not super memorable. For those practical reasons I think this could use a better name, but I'm not going to write-off a project just because it's name is odd.


"There's little in it that shows that the team has the level of skills needed to write a platform."

Is the demo not enough? It's paradoxical having the skill of building something that is new.





Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: