Microblogs are 200-500 characters, so I was expecting a nanoblog to me to be an order of magnitude less than that :sweat_smile:

Or technically, three orders of magnitude smaller? (half a character per post)

oh. the measure is how much code was used to implement it. at about 200 lines of javascript (to parse the text, convert it to json and render it as static HTML) it's at least a thousand times fewer lines of code as the early scala code that implemented twitter.

[edit - though it looks like handlebars (that I use for generating HTML from templates) has about 30k lines in files that end in .js, so maybe twitter is 30m lines of code?]

[second edit - hmm... maybe i'll change the name to "mini-blog" to signal it's a blog that's 25% the performance of a "mainframe-blog" but 10% the cost. though "mini-blog" might be more appropriate: halfway between a "normal" blog entry and a "micro-blog."]

Just make the urls a little longer and then you can tell people the posts are generally shorter than the urls.

also... I'm a computer scientist so "three orders of magnitude" means 8. ;-)