brecht

Your comments reveal a person who's never worked in a sizable programming team for any length of time, be it at a large firm, a large collaborative project, or what-have-you. Which is fine; the article is not directed at the basement hacker, or the fad-du-jour startup slave, or whomever. It's toward the person who's been working long enough to prove themselves capable as a producer, and who's developed a (very common!) ego about their own abilities. Overcoming that ego can be a surprisingly difficult thing to do, if you're reasonably competent. But it's definitely a necessary step to "becoming a better software developer".

Your site has to become cool before anyone is going to bother reporting on it. You don't get automatic reporter points just because you feel strongly that you should, or even because you work hard at it. As it stands, your site is Yet Another Portal or News Aggregator or whatever and it's just not a particularly compelling... thing.

A lot of the analysis of Wave so far has (stupidly) focused on the web app that Google was showing off, on the whiz-bang HTML5 bullshit that ultimately doesn't much matter. I think it's really important to think of Wave not in terms of the front-end they were showing off, but rather in terms of the underlying protocol that powered it. Google envisions it as a sort of SMTP 2.0, powering most person-to-person communication on the internet; if (and only if) the industry gets behind it unilaterally, I think it has a real chance of success.

The paucity of existing documentation can be forgiven, but only to a point -- it's definitely on Google to make the complex elements of that protocol (and there are many) developer-accessible. As cool as the technology is, it'll wither and die without proper support.