Comment by kazinator
5 years ago
I don't think there is any fundamentally original idea in replit.
It is a time-sharing system where you can log in and use a programming language.
We have had those since not long after the dawn of computing.
Since at least 1970, we also had smart terminals that allowed the user to fill in a form, and validate it, before sending it to the host.
So the time-sharing session being carried out by a protocol between the web front end and back-end is not ipso facto original.
Needless to say, neither is the idea of a repl running in a separate process that provides editing, with expressions sent out to a running image for evaluation.
Why does it have to be original to be a product people will pay for? There are plenty of unoriginal yet profitable products.
What you've said is all true, but most users today don't use computers like that. Arguably developers already do if they have SSH access somewhere, but if repl.it brings that experience to a general audience via a web browser then it's already valuable.
If the Chrome cloud VM idea[1] can raise millions in funding, so can a web timesharing system. ;)
[1]: https://mightyapp.com/
> Why does it have to be original to be a product people will pay for?
No, no; for that it absolutely doesn't. People pay for all sorts of goods that are not original, like loaves of bread, pairs of sneakers or T-shirts.
It had better be original if you're going to harass former interns that they're ripping off some intellectual property, and threaten them with lawyers.
That's all.
Sorry, my reply was a bit too aggressive and I jumped to conclusions about what you meant.
You're right, though I still think repl.it has some right to be protective of their IP here. The originality of the service is in the ease of use and modernizing the old timesharing idea, so while they were quick to mention legal action and acted obnoxiously to their former intern, they're right to be weary of something that looks so similar to their product and judging from the emails even in the implementation details.
I agree with you but nothing about the comment was discussing whether or not people will pay for repl.it
The context of this HN post is about originality itself.
True, but criticizing a lack of originality boils down to "this product isn't useful". I was arguing more for the utility/value of the service, which results in demand and customers.
1 reply →