v0.10 comes after v0.8(0)? That's like launching Chrome v3 after Chrome v25.
It's major.minor.revision, not decimal.
[deleted]
What’s new in Node v0.10?
41–50 of 52 posts
Re: What’s new in Node v0.10?
#42v0.10 comes after v0.8(0)? That's like launching Chrome v3 after Chrome v25.
Not sure if trolling…
By reading some of the gems around here, apparently not. Example:
> A version number is a sequence of natural numbers ordered lexicographically.
I need a new rage face for expressing this.
Re: What’s new in Node v0.10?
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not meant to be a decimal number. A version number is a sequence of natural numbers ordered lexicographically.
Do you have _any_ standard to back up that claim or you're pulling that out of nowhere like the rest of the down-voter crowd? Besides, in the node.js community the semantic versioning is accepted as standard. npm is the default tool for managing packages. For reference: http://semver.org/
The claim that version numbers aren't the same as decimal expansions of real numbers? Yes, well, the link you just provided gives evidence for that. I'm not familiar with semantic versioning, but as far as I can tell, one element of it is version numbers being triples of natural numbers. Well then, at least in the case you're talking about, version numbers aren't the same as decimal expansions of real numbers.
In general, I would argue version numbers are sequences of natural numbers ordered lexicographically. That means they're not the same as decimal expansions of real numbers.
Re: What’s new in Node v0.10?
#44huh so these strongloop guys are the new node maintainers?
No. StrongLoop employs 2 node core committers, Ben Noordhuis and Bert Belder, who are also two of the most active libuv committers. (They have other folks that work there, of course, but those two also work on Node itself quite a lot.) Joyent still is the custodian and IP owner of the Node.js project. They pay me to work on node, and also provide the project with marketing, legal, hosting, and other resources. Joyent…
As I read it, Joyent relicenses the IP under MIT, so although they may be the IP "owner" they immediately give anyone a license to do pretty much whatever with the code.
Definitely appreciate that they pay you to work on it. Appreciate that there are new companies in the ecosystem too.
And finally someone who looks like they are going to support Node on Windows and Linux!
Re: What’s new in Node v0.10?
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you explain that?, because if you're right I been wrong my whole life.
here, the dot is not used to separate integers from decimals, just to separate two integer numbers. This is common practice in software projects ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Incrementin... )
That's not the role of the dot in ordinary decimal expansions either. There its role is to mark where the sequence transitions from positive powers of ten (to its left) to negative powers of ten (to its right).
Re: What’s new in Node v0.10?
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if trolling…
By reading some of the gems around here, apparently not. Example: > A version number is a sequence of natural numbers ordered lexicographically. I need a new rage face for expressing this.
I'm sorry I made you angry. But leaving out versioning schemes in which 0.1 and 0.10 are in fact considered the same, and leaving out letters and stuff (which are trivially encoded in scheme you quote anyway), this is what a version number is, in its general sense.
Re: What’s new in Node v0.10?
#47After 9 months all we get is a new streams interface?
First, it's a very nice new streams interface. Second, the core functionality can't change that much at this point if people want their old code to work. Read the discussion of streams2 and see how much thought went into avoiding breakage. http://blog.nodejs.org/2012/12/20/streams2/
Re: What’s new in Node v0.10?
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
It probably would have been better to say v0.10 != v0.1, since obviously "0.10 != 0.1" is a misleading statement.
Thank you all for your explanations, but this was exactly what I meant.
Please don't do this; it's annoying and unnecessary. The context for untog's comment was quite clear. A lot of folks wasted time trying to clarify something for you.
Re: What’s new in Node v0.10?
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have _any_ standard to back up that claim or you're pulling that out of nowhere like the rest of the down-voter crowd? Besides, in the node.js community the semantic versioning is accepted as standard. npm is the default tool for managing packages. For reference: http://semver.org/
The claim that version numbers aren't the same as decimal expansions of real numbers? Yes, well, the link you just provided gives evidence for that. I'm not familiar with semantic versioning, but as far as I can tell, one element of it is version numbers being triples of natural numbers. Well then, at least in the case you're talking about, version numbers aren't the same as decimal expansions of real numbers. In gen…
If you look at my comparison, you can see that it isn't a decimal number. I said (dropping the v prefix, that may bee to subtle for HN): 0.8 < 0.10 < 0.80. In decimal that would be: 0.8 < 0.1 < 0.8 - the comparison doesn't work this way (duh). But it isn't lexicographic sorting either. This sequence: 0.8, 0.80, 0.2, 0.20 has this lexicographic order: 0.2, 0.20, 0.8, 0.80, while a proper version ordering is to compare the stuff after the dot aka 2 < 8 < 20 < 80.
Re: What’s new in Node v0.10?
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
By reading some of the gems around here, apparently not. Example: > A version number is a sequence of natural numbers ordered lexicographically. I need a new rage face for expressing this.
I'm sorry I made you angry. But leaving out versioning schemes in which 0.1 and 0.10 are in fact considered the same, and leaving out letters and stuff (which are trivially encoded in scheme you quote anyway), this is what a version number is, in its general sense.
"Rage faces" aren't necessarily composed only of "rage". Explained in the other comment why this actually isn't lexicographic sorting.