Io.js 1.0.0 • Hacker News Board

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#32

Post by Gys » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 4:22 AM UTC

ykl wrote: post #5

What is a spork, as contrasted with a development fork?

I think it is the same ? Some people think a spork sounds less offensive (more friendly) then a fork ? Also as a utensil (which these are both).

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#33

Post by politician » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 4:22 AM UTC

simlevesque wrote: post #25

I have no issue with this fork but why oh why did they drop semantic versioning ? Do they want us to waste our time reading every single changelog ?

Honest question, do you have good luck with semantic versioning? I find it's pretty hit or miss on whether an X.Y.2 patch breaks functionality in the previous X.Y.1 build.

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#34

Post by elisee » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 4:23 AM UTC

ykl wrote: post #5

What is a spork, as contrasted with a development fork?

It's a playful way to say they don't really want to fork the Node.js ecosystem. io.js will evolve alongside Node.js and the core team is open to merging back with Node.js if possible.

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#35

Post by silverwind » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 4:23 AM UTC

scope wrote: post #23

how would one go about deploying (say on Heroku) an iojs app?

Heroku has pretty good node support, but I'd doubt they support replacing the binary yet, so you'd have to wait for Heroku to support that.

For manual deployment, the single iojs binary and your project folder should suffice, along with a way to start/restart your app automatically.

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#36

Post by secoif » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 4:24 AM UTC

nubela wrote: post #3

How does a 1.0.0 translate to beta-stability build?

Node is moving to semantic versioning: http://semver.org/

In this scheme, version number is not an indicator of stability.

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#37

Post by AbeEstrada » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 4:25 AM UTC

In case you want to install it with `brew` https://github.com/smockle/homebrew-iojs

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#38

Post by elisee » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 4:28 AM UTC

nickfargo wrote: post #31

ls -l /usr/local/bin/node lrwxr-xr-x 1 502 staff 4 Jan 13 20:10 /usr/local/bin/node -> iojs Is this necessary?

Yes, lots of packages depend on "the JavaScript executable" being called node. Discussion: https://github.com/iojs/io.js/issues/43

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#39

Post by tree_of_item » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 4:30 AM UTC

nickfargo wrote: post #31

ls -l /usr/local/bin/node lrwxr-xr-x 1 502 staff 4 Jan 13 20:10 /usr/local/bin/node -> iojs Is this necessary?

Yes, I've watched some of the io.js minutes on YouTube and they basically reached a consensus that this was definitely necessary. They want to be a drop in replacement for Node.js.

Re: Io.js 1.0.0

#40

Post by nevi-me » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 4:31 AM UTC

silversupreme wrote: post #27

mintplant wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a fork of node.js with ES6 support. The goal is a faster release cycle and an updated V8 engine, plus an "open governance model" as opposed to Joyent's domination of node.js prime. https://github.com/iojs/io.js Current Project Team Members ============================ Isaac Z. Schlueter Ben Noordhuis Bert Belder Fedor Indutny Trevor Norris Chris Dickinson Colin Ihrig Mikeal Rogers Rod Vagg

I find Ben's inclusion on this list interesting, given his history with Joyent/the node community.

Even though he stopped being part of core, he has remained active in Node.js development. It's part of his job at StrongLoop I suppose. A fresh start with an open governance model at least should mean that most politics are set aside.