Here's how GITHUB.COM makes money* and how much!

*Please read our disclaimer before using our estimates.
Loading...

GITHUB . COM {}

Detected CMS Systems:

  1. Analyzed Page
  2. Matching Content Categories
  3. CMS
  4. Monthly Traffic Estimate
  5. How Does Github.com Make Money
  6. How Much Does Github.com Make
  7. Wordpress Themes And Plugins
  8. Keywords
  9. Topics
  10. Payment Methods
  11. Questions
  12. Schema
  13. External Links
  14. Analytics And Tracking
  15. Libraries
  16. Hosting Providers

We are analyzing https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9713.

Title:
[css-values] Make min and max value optional in `clamp()` Β· Issue #9713 Β· w3c/csswg-drafts
Description:
As we know, we added clamp() because doing clamping logic with min() and max() is counterintuitive. However, this doesn't only apply when you have both a min and a max, it’s still counterintuit...
Website Age:
17 years and 8 months (reg. 2007-10-09).

Matching Content Categories {πŸ“š}

  • Cryptocurrency
  • Dating & Relationships
  • Social Networks

Content Management System {πŸ“}

What CMS is github.com built with?


Github.com employs WORDPRESS.

Traffic Estimate {πŸ“ˆ}

What is the average monthly size of github.com audience?

πŸš€πŸŒ  Tremendous Traffic: 10M - 20M visitors per month


Based on our best estimate, this website will receive around 10,653,974 visitors per month in the current month.

check SE Ranking
check Ahrefs
check Similarweb
check Ubersuggest
check Semrush

How Does Github.com Make Money? {πŸ’Έ}


Subscription Packages {πŸ’³}

We've located a dedicated page on github.com that might include details about subscription plans or recurring payments. We identified it based on the word pricing in one of its internal links. Below, you'll find additional estimates for its monthly recurring revenues.

How Much Does Github.com Make? {πŸ’°}


Subscription Packages {πŸ’³}

Prices on github.com are in US Dollars ($). They range from $4.00/month to $21.00/month.
We estimate that the site has approximately 5,316,204 paying customers.
The estimated monthly recurring revenue (MRR) is $22,328,057.
The estimated annual recurring revenues (ARR) are $267,936,687.

Wordpress Themes and Plugins {🎨}

What WordPress theme does this site use?

It is strange but we were not able to detect any theme on the page.

What WordPress plugins does this website use?

It is strange but we were not able to detect any plugins on the page.

Keywords {πŸ”}

max, min, clamp, cssvalues, make, optional, commented, byteeaterpl, leaverou, tabatkins, minimum, people, sign, calcsum, syntax, agenda, member, issue, closed, added, values, argument, easy, work, adding, confusing, terms, react, cssmeetingbot, mentioned, navigation, code, pull, requests, actions, projects, security, clamping, counterintuitive, doesnt, alternative, win, pretty, current, makes, lot, sense, youre, side, cases,

Topics {βœ’οΈ}

[css-values] make min css working group css-values-4 csswg resolution adds cognitive overhead full irc log comment metadata assignees added clamp pretty strongly opposed comma-elision rules people regularly write max values optional agenda+ upper/lower bounds work milestone relationships make min max values values lower bounds make pretty uncontroversial code generation introduce upper dummy min pointless computation empty tokens small change move forwards call time obvious win good reason terms mental gymnastics completely intuitive people aware omitted argument confusion argument clamping logic maximum number bound makes github minimum threshold easy win discussion πŸš€ react introducing clamp clamp double alternative syntax adding syntax min

Payment Methods {πŸ“Š}

  • Braintree

Questions {❓}

  • Already have an account?
  • Why not just use max or min when you want to clamp from one side?

Schema {πŸ—ΊοΈ}

DiscussionForumPosting:
      context:https://schema.org
      headline:[css-values] Make min and max value optional in `clamp()`
      articleBody:As we know, we added [`clamp()`](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values/#comp-func) because doing clamping logic with `min()` and `max()` is counterintuitive. However, this doesn't only apply when you have *both* a min and a max, it’s _still_ counterintuitive when you only have one of two. I keep finding myself using `clamp()` with dummy min or max values so that I can only use it for max or min respectively, which not only adds cognitive overhead, but also pointless computation. A nice little improvement could be to make the min and max values optional via `none` keywords: [Before](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values/#calc-syntax): ``` <clamp()> = clamp( <calc-sum>#{3} ) ``` After: ``` <clamp()> = clamp( [ <calc-sum> | none ] , <calc-sum> , [ <calc-sum> | none ]) ``` <details> <summary> Alternative syntax: Using empty tokens for the omitted argument </summary> ``` <clamp()> = clamp( <calc-sum>? , <calc-sum> , <calc-sum>? ) ``` Note that this is different from `clamp( <calc-sum>#{2, 3} )`: we still need empty tokens for the missing arguments, otherwise we wouldn't be able to disambiguate. I.e. `clamp(3rem, 10vh)` would not be valid, it would need to be either `clamp(3rem, 10vh, )` or `clamp( , 3rem, 10vh)`. If we go that route we'd also need to add an exception to require the comma with empty arguments, per normal grammar specification rules the comma would be omitted, making disambiguation impossible. When I first posted this I thought going the empty token route would be ideal, as `none` seemed too verbose, but I now think the clarity hit is not worth it, especially if we take the editorial challenges into account. </details> Hopefully this is such a small change we may be able to wedge it in css-values-4. Edit: Agenda+ after discussing it with @fantasai and @tabatkins β€” this seems like such an easy win and pretty uncontroversial so we could move forwards with hopefully very little call time.
      author:
         url:https://github.com/LeaVerou
         type:Person
         name:LeaVerou
      datePublished:2023-12-15T15:07:59.000Z
      interactionStatistic:
         type:InteractionCounter
         interactionType:https://schema.org/CommentAction
         userInteractionCount:8
      url:https://github.com/9713/csswg-drafts/issues/9713
      context:https://schema.org
      headline:[css-values] Make min and max value optional in `clamp()`
      articleBody:As we know, we added [`clamp()`](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values/#comp-func) because doing clamping logic with `min()` and `max()` is counterintuitive. However, this doesn't only apply when you have *both* a min and a max, it’s _still_ counterintuitive when you only have one of two. I keep finding myself using `clamp()` with dummy min or max values so that I can only use it for max or min respectively, which not only adds cognitive overhead, but also pointless computation. A nice little improvement could be to make the min and max values optional via `none` keywords: [Before](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values/#calc-syntax): ``` <clamp()> = clamp( <calc-sum>#{3} ) ``` After: ``` <clamp()> = clamp( [ <calc-sum> | none ] , <calc-sum> , [ <calc-sum> | none ]) ``` <details> <summary> Alternative syntax: Using empty tokens for the omitted argument </summary> ``` <clamp()> = clamp( <calc-sum>? , <calc-sum> , <calc-sum>? ) ``` Note that this is different from `clamp( <calc-sum>#{2, 3} )`: we still need empty tokens for the missing arguments, otherwise we wouldn't be able to disambiguate. I.e. `clamp(3rem, 10vh)` would not be valid, it would need to be either `clamp(3rem, 10vh, )` or `clamp( , 3rem, 10vh)`. If we go that route we'd also need to add an exception to require the comma with empty arguments, per normal grammar specification rules the comma would be omitted, making disambiguation impossible. When I first posted this I thought going the empty token route would be ideal, as `none` seemed too verbose, but I now think the clarity hit is not worth it, especially if we take the editorial challenges into account. </details> Hopefully this is such a small change we may be able to wedge it in css-values-4. Edit: Agenda+ after discussing it with @fantasai and @tabatkins β€” this seems like such an easy win and pretty uncontroversial so we could move forwards with hopefully very little call time.
      author:
         url:https://github.com/LeaVerou
         type:Person
         name:LeaVerou
      datePublished:2023-12-15T15:07:59.000Z
      interactionStatistic:
         type:InteractionCounter
         interactionType:https://schema.org/CommentAction
         userInteractionCount:8
      url:https://github.com/9713/csswg-drafts/issues/9713
Person:
      url:https://github.com/LeaVerou
      name:LeaVerou
      url:https://github.com/LeaVerou
      name:LeaVerou
InteractionCounter:
      interactionType:https://schema.org/CommentAction
      userInteractionCount:8
      interactionType:https://schema.org/CommentAction
      userInteractionCount:8

Analytics and Tracking {πŸ“Š}

  • Site Verification - Google

Libraries {πŸ“š}

  • Clipboard.js
  • D3.js
  • Lodash

Emails and Hosting {βœ‰οΈ}

Mail Servers:

  • aspmx.l.google.com
  • alt1.aspmx.l.google.com
  • alt2.aspmx.l.google.com
  • alt3.aspmx.l.google.com
  • alt4.aspmx.l.google.com

Name Servers:

  • dns1.p08.nsone.net
  • dns2.p08.nsone.net
  • dns3.p08.nsone.net
  • dns4.p08.nsone.net
  • ns-1283.awsdns-32.org
  • ns-1707.awsdns-21.co.uk
  • ns-421.awsdns-52.com
  • ns-520.awsdns-01.net
8.38s.