and it all goes downhill from there... I was never a big fan on node.js. it's mainstream popularity seems due to its corporate governance. io has just been so much more agile and faster, that I really worry that we will see stagnation now if this all goes through
Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal
51–60 of 83 posts
Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's open source, not commercial. there's no point for competition. it's better to join resources and create equilibrium. the industry will need standards which will cause one project to die (sooner or later) and we will loose all the talent and energy spent there.
Competitive pressure isn't just useful for commercial projects, it is also useful for open source projects.
It's not even uncommon to have projects compete inside a company, like linux vs osx for ios in the early days. And in-house or open source competition is much better than a typical commercial competition because the good parts from all sides can be reused, lessons learned. This is why I am against software patents, too.
Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal
#53Oh man I love it! There's no way Joyent is going to say yes to this, and the best part is that these are absolutely reasonable, sensible proposals. I grok that io.js core devs are totally serious about merging back into Node, but there's no way Joyent is going to go for this. I expect at best a counter-proposal (that may not even be public) that doesn't do these points justice. The ball is absolutely in Joyent's cour…
Why do you think Joyent will not say yes?
Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal
#54Honestly, this just makes io.js look even more childish. They're issuing ultimatums without any reasonable chance of success. There are completely logical technical reasons for forking node into io.js. There are even political changes which need to be made. But instead of trying to reasonably discuss the future of Node in a collaborative fashion, io.js has essentially issued an ultimatum which determines the entire g…
Such a coup does rest on most of the 359 working groups voting in agreeance according to the provisional and not yet entirely decided, declared, or ratified by-laws of the tentative constitution of the current committee's purview of the project, however. My opinion? I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of the will of the working grou…
Downvoted or not, this is now my favorite comment on the site. Bureaucratic surrealism is the best way to describe the situation.
Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open source competition can be good when the differences are primarily technical (e.g. GCC vs LLVM/Clang). When the differences are primarily political (e.g. GCC vs EGCS), then the competition serves only as a distraction. As a mostly-uninvolved outside observer, this competition seems more like the later than the former.
Political competition is hugely important. Governance models are tech.
What? No.
Political debates occur when everyone involved agrees that they're at "A" and they want to get to "B", but they disagree on the best path to take. A technical debate is when there is a fundamental disagreement about whether "B" or "C" is the better end goal.
In the EGCS case, the goal of building a cross-platform compiler collection was clear, but the process of getting contributions accepted into the mainline had become increasingly onerous for a large number of (potential) contributors. With LLVM vs GCC, there's a fundamental difference of opinion regarding the importance of modularity of the compiler stack (LLVM) vs speed and efficiency of the generated code (GCC).
In the case of node.js vs io.js, it seems to me that everyone still agrees they want an Ecma standards-compliant, evented JS runtime built upon V8 and libuv. If io.js had forked, say, because they wanted to rebase on JSCore or Rhino, then I could see the value in keeping both projects around.
As it stands, if I am a developer, and I want to help build an Ecma standards-compliant, evented JS runtime built upon V8 and libuv...then where do I go? node.js? io.js? If that choice is made based on governance model, then we're enriching the world of governance models, not the world of tech.
Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal
#56Funny thing about trying to standardize products or frameworks - You start with one fine product. Someone wants a bit extra, so they make a fork of the project. Then someone tries to make an all encompassing product to cover all the subsets. So there is a third one out there. Now you have to maintain not 2 but 3 separate projects, and document everything. The same story happens so often, people still try.
Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal
#57Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multiple languages coexist. Within Javascript, there are multiple module systems, general utility/polyfill libraries, test runners... for better or worse, we continue to have many alternatives for almost anything. So why not also different implementations of a language interpreter?
> Multiple languages coexist. Within Javascript, there are multiple module systems, general utility/polyfill libraries, test runners... for better or worse, we continue to have many alternatives for almost anything. So why not also different implementations of a language interpreter? As it was already said they run the same package manager and claim compatibility. This means you either can't take advantage of any new…
Welcome to the wonderful world of writing portable C and C++ code across multiple compilers and OSs.
Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because no one has had the time to read the whole thing, think deeply about his position and state it in the last hour proves nothing.
Ok. Here are some issues from joyent/node that have not gotten any comments in over a month: https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/9022 https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/8987 https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/8975 https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/8974 https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/8931 Just randomly went to the issues page and looked
I thought you just wanted to link to both proposals and not poke at Node.
Re: Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal
#60Oh man I love it! There's no way Joyent is going to say yes to this, and the best part is that these are absolutely reasonable, sensible proposals. I grok that io.js core devs are totally serious about merging back into Node, but there's no way Joyent is going to go for this. I expect at best a counter-proposal (that may not even be public) that doesn't do these points justice. The ball is absolutely in Joyent's cour…
> these are absolutely reasonable, sensible proposals
No they aren't. If you look at the changes to the Technical Comittee. The proposal is to add 3 members to it. I can't help but think there are way more people at Joyent. The TC seems to have alot of power on the direction of the project.
It doesn't seem reasonable to effectively stage a coup on node and ask Joyent to give up control over it.