Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zx 3.0

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 169 posts

Re: Zx 3.0

#61

Post by q3k »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #60
marcyb5st wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. You need explicit permission (there is a process for obtaining it, and it is very lightweight as I've done it myself). The general idea is that you get permission without much hassle if you develop something that doesn't compete with Google. You need to argue your case otherwise. Source: I'm a Googler that went through the process before. Edit #1 for all Googlers reading this: search "IARC" internally and y…

Many companies make claims over their employees' intellectual property. How much of a claim they actually have legally is a different question, which depends on the country (and sometimes state) where the employee works, and companies routinely attempt to claim more than they legally can. Compare e.g. https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/property-law/californ... I bet Google lacks the copyright for many of the proj…

> I bet Google lacks the copyright for many of the projects they claim.

Good luck taking Google to court.

Re: Zx 3.0

#62

Post by travelbuffoon »

sneak wrote: post #51
codewiz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't correct: if a Googler writes some code from scratch, which is unrelated to their work, on their personal time, and using their personal laptop... then it's definitely not owned by Google. There could be gray areas where code ownership could be disputed, but in general your employer owns only the intellectual property it paid for. Source: I'm a Googler (until next month).

There is very little code that a Googler could write that is unrelated to their employer’s business. You’re almost certainly going to need an explicit carve-out, as other Googlers in the thread have pointed out.

There’s a difference between: unrelated to your job, and unrelated to the business as a whole.

In some locations, employers can’t claim copyright on works unrelated to your current role.

Re: Zx 3.0

#63

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

mikevm wrote: post #16

Ugh, typing `await` for every command is terrible. JavaScript's async-by-default model is clearly not a good fit for this use case.

Requiring it for every command by default sucks, but on the other hand, the ability to easily make scripts async is a huge benefit.

I've seen so many cases of processes being synchronous simply because doing it differently would require an unrealistic amount of custom parallelism code.

Re: Zx 3.0

#65

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

jpxw wrote: post #42

After reading about various vulnerabilities which are the direct result of backwards JS language features - most recently prototype pollution - I’d be hesitant to use JS for writing scripts. Maybe I’m just being paranoid.

I think a much bigger concern is the ecosystem.

The node ecosystem is built around having third-party dependencies for everything, which makes it impossible to meaningfully vet the code you're running, and once a dependency gets hijacked, all its dependencies are screwed too.

Re: Zx 3.0

#66

Post by marcyb5st »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #60
marcyb5st wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. You need explicit permission (there is a process for obtaining it, and it is very lightweight as I've done it myself). The general idea is that you get permission without much hassle if you develop something that doesn't compete with Google. You need to argue your case otherwise. Source: I'm a Googler that went through the process before. Edit #1 for all Googlers reading this: search "IARC" internally and y…

Many companies make claims over their employees' intellectual property. How much of a claim they actually have legally is a different question, which depends on the country (and sometimes state) where the employee works, and companies routinely attempt to claim more than they legally can. Compare e.g. https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/property-law/californ... I bet Google lacks the copyright for many of the proj…

Maybe true, but I am unwilling to try my luck. I mean, the process I mentioned above takes 30 minutes [1] if it's clear you aren't competing with Google and so I don't see a major issue about playing it safe and have written consent to develop your idea/project.

[1] you fill a form with the general idea description, you explain succinctly why it doesn't compete to any Google product, and you acknowledge you won't use Google time and resources to develop it. Then a committee reviews it and in ~1 week you get your approval or request for more details.

Re: Zx 3.0

#67

Post by tyingq »

I suppose it's easy to poke fun at combining the "best" of shell scripting and JS. But, the examples of using await() with child processes and pipes are pretty nice, and less verbose than the Perl or Python equivalents. It does seem well designed for anything where you're orchestrating parallel runs of commands.

Re: Zx 3.0

#68

Post by ducktective »

azkae wrote: post #64

Somewhat related, if you are looking to do scripts in Python you should take a look at `sh`: import sh print(sh.ifconfig("eth0")) https://amoffat.github.io/sh/

Is this the ergonomic `subprocess.Popen` alternative?

Re: Zx 3.0

#70

Post by marcyb5st »

kyrra wrote: post #54
marcyb5st wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. You need explicit permission (there is a process for obtaining it, and it is very lightweight as I've done it myself). The general idea is that you get permission without much hassle if you develop something that doesn't compete with Google. You need to argue your case otherwise. Source: I'm a Googler that went through the process before. Edit #1 for all Googlers reading this: search "IARC" internally and y…

Btw, Google actually publishes this documentation externally. https://opensource.google/docs/releasing/

Thanks, I didn't know this. I thought it was only internal stuff.
Post reply on HN