Io.js 1.0.0

Post by mqzaidi » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 11:44 AM UTC

mintplant wrote: post #16

quaunaut wrote: post #10

...Okay, normally I roll my eyes at people asking "What does this do" but Christ this is ridiculous. From the FAQ: > What is io.js? > io.js is a JavaScript platform that is compatable with Node.js & npm. What does that even mean? Edit: Thanks for those answering. I started figuring out what it was, but sometimes folks really need to learn that "A correct definition" is not the same as "a useful definition". However,…

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

Post by namuol » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 11:56 AM UTC

_greim_ wrote: post #42

I suspect there will be a split in the npm ecosystem now, not so much along node/iojs lines but along es5/es6 lines. There's already been lots of discussion about whether module builders should publish es6 code, or should everything be transpiled down to es5 code in order to keep the ecosystem unified (the unspoken caveat being, around es5). I think es5 is a dinosaur as of today, so I say go ahead and publish es6 cod…

Post by stephenr » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 12:06 PM UTC

namuol wrote: post #125

stephenr wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it just follows on the ridiculousness of the Node community in general. A tool at version 0.10 and everyone screams about how stable it is and can't wait to bet their business on it. A bunch of people are unhappy and fork the project, and make the initial version 1.0, but make a point of saying (despite not using a related version number/identifier) that it's beta. Realistically it sounds like both projects sho…

This seems like a step away from "ridiculous" to me. Declaring something as 1.0 means that any 1.X releases are going to be backwards-compatible with the 1.0 spec. This is objectively different than versioning something 0.X, which implies that the baseline spec is not finalized. Calling something "Beta", however, just means that a feature-complete major version is still being actively developed (i.e. new minor featur…

Post by rlaanemets » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 12:16 PM UTC

CHY872 wrote: post #115

dan15 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but something "JavaScript runtime with npm compatibility" would be friendlier and significantly easier for people to understand.

They don't provide the Javascript runtime - Google does that. This is a fork of Node.js - glossing over this is at least a little disrespectful to Node.js.

Post by johnsea » Wed, Jan 14, 2015, 12:42 PM UTC

Argorak wrote: post #94

malandrew wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With 1098 commits to libuv, which represents 35.2% of all commits to that project and the most number of commits from any single individual, and 1409 commits to node (13.8%, 3rd after Ryan Dahl and Isaac Schlueter), I'd say that him "getting thrown under the bus" is a huge understatement of what happened.

I don't think he got "thrown under the bus" - he moved to a position were others did not want to defend him or even just keep on. Unsurprisingly, I would add, he should know the other people. Still, the inclusion shows that not all bridges are burned, which makes me happy.