HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
ponyfoo
ponyfoo
OPEN SOURCE2014–2016
ponyfoo / ponyfoo

ponyfoo

🦄 More than a blogging platform, from the land of rainbows! 🌈

Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
2Distinct people
4Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
2GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

🦄 More than a blogging platform, from the land of rainbows! 🌈

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month4 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2014-10-22 13:23:58 UTC to 2016-10-26 14:34:25 UTC.

0122014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsOct 20142014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsOct 20152015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsOct 2016

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Oct 20142014-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC110
Nov 20142014-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20142014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC202
Feb 20152015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20152015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20152015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20152015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20152015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20152015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20152015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20152015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20152015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 20152015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 20152015-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jan 20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20162016-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Mar 20162016-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20162016-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20162016-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20162016-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20162016-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20162016-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20162016-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20162016-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-11-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

4 sources
bevacqua·Oct 26, 2016
Author here. Excellent question! That's because Twitter doesn't offer fine-grained control over what permissions you request. The website that asks for that stuff is open-source[1], though, so you can take a look at what it does (just send out a single tweet). If you still feel uneasy about granting me access to tweet through your account, that's perfectly understandable, and I have two options that may work for you: - Revoke access right after you authorize the app. The tweet will still be sent out, and you will still keep your access to the HTML chapters. Since I don't get access to your DMs, there's no harm nor potential harm done. - Just read the book on GitHub[2]. It isn't as pretty as the HTML version, but it works well enough and alleviates your security concerns. [1]: http://github.com/ponyfoo/ponyfoo [2]: https://github.com/mjava
Read the rest
script/practical-es6
In Show HN: I'm writing the Modular JavaScript book series
scrollaway·Jan 16, 2015
That's easy when 95% of your commits are 100% noise minor bump of versions in the dependency manifest: https://github.com/ponyfoo/ponyfoo/commits/master bevacqua, I don't know what you are trying to achieve by that, but if this is an actual serious project, know that this commit log is unreadable and would repel any potential contributor to the project you might find. And I don't mean to offend because, going by your profile, you're obviously a very active open source contributor - but I also found the exact same log quality issues in all your other projects. If you truly care about them, you should care about that too.
In Presenting the Most Over-Engineered Blog Ever

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.