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

The Deno Company

deno.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 446 posts

Re: The Deno Company

#161

Post by brundolf »

xiaq wrote: post #47
franciscop wrote: post #42

Nice to see! How do they plan to monetize? I either became blind or missed it somehow. The article does say how they DON'T plan on monetize: "Rest assured that Deno will remain MIT licensed. For Deno to grow and be maximally useful, it must remain permissively free. We don’t believe the “open core” business model is right for a programming platform like Deno." There are some hints though: "If you watch our conference…

Sounds to me that they will build some sort of hosted service or maybe PaaS based on the Deno runtime (like AppEngine or AWS lambda), but yeah it's pretty vague.

Heroku doesn't (yet) officially support Deno. That's the main reason I don't use Deno for my personal site. So I'd say there's a market there.

Re: The Deno Company

#162

Post by rpdillon »

40four wrote: post #128
celeritascelery wrote: post #85

> Many are more familiar with the Chrome DevTools console than they are with a Unix command-line prompt. More familiar with WebSockets than BSD sockets, MDN than man pages. Bash and Zsh scripts calling into native code will never go away. But JavaScript and TypeScript scripts calling into WebAssembly code will be increasingly common. Many developers, we think, prefer web-first abstraction layers. Every time I read so…

Respectfully, your comment is way off topic, and nothing to do with discussing The Deno Company, and what it means for the Deno ecosystem. Not to mention, this is a very worn out, tired complaint that's been talked about ad nauseam. Reading angry swipes at web developers is not very interesting. Ok, you're not a web developer. So you stick to what pays the bills, why would you learn Node or Typescript? Same for web d…

> Respectfully, your comment is way off topic, and nothing to do with discussing The Deno Company,

My take from reading the blog post was that the Deno Company's entire thesis is that the developer community will increasingly be moving away from these older abstractions and towards web-based abstractions, and Deno is positioning itself to fuel that migration. GP's comment addresses this directly; it seems rather on-topic to my reading.

Re: The Deno Company

#163

Post by 55555 »

40four wrote: post #128
celeritascelery wrote: post #85

> Many are more familiar with the Chrome DevTools console than they are with a Unix command-line prompt. More familiar with WebSockets than BSD sockets, MDN than man pages. Bash and Zsh scripts calling into native code will never go away. But JavaScript and TypeScript scripts calling into WebAssembly code will be increasingly common. Many developers, we think, prefer web-first abstraction layers. Every time I read so…

Respectfully, your comment is way off topic, and nothing to do with discussing The Deno Company, and what it means for the Deno ecosystem. Not to mention, this is a very worn out, tired complaint that's been talked about ad nauseam. Reading angry swipes at web developers is not very interesting. Ok, you're not a web developer. So you stick to what pays the bills, why would you learn Node or Typescript? Same for web d…

When I read the parent comment I didn't infer any of the spite you seem to have felt. It's an interesting question, rephrased: "Is this the best way forward? Or is it only better because people don't need to learn a new language? What are the advantages and disadvantages? Will my current approach to development go out of fashion?"

Re: The Deno Company

#164

Post by exhaze »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #46
exhaze wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's make a gentlemens' bet. If Deno is still completely free in 5 years, I'll give you $500. You up for that?

> If Deno is still completely free in 5 years, I'll give you $500. You up for that? Heck, sign me up. Who wouldn't be up for that? What's the downside supposed to be?

It wasn’t clear enough that if it isn’t, you’ll be expected to give me $500?

Re: The Deno Company

#165

Post by murukesh_s »

cphoover wrote: post #131
TechBro8615 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ryan Dahl (author of the announcement post) is the creator of Node.js, so I think he's got a right to say these things! Also see "10 things I regret about Node" [0] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3BM9TB-8yA

Ryan Dahl left the leadership of the Node.js pretty early in its development. A lot of people can be considered "the creator" of Node.js to be fair.

>Ryan Dahl left the leadership of the Node.js pretty early in its development. A lot of people can be considered "the creator" of Node.js to be fair.

Don't think so. I have been using Node.js since 2010 and following the ecosystem. Node.js is the child of Ryan Dahl. Other than Ryan, perhaps Isaac Schlueter is the most influential person who developed the NPM as a separate project and later merged into Node. Ryan could have done it himself or embedded it in Node.js, but guessing from Deno he is not keen on a centralised package repository so could have let Isaac build NPM as a separate project.

From what I could observe, the overall API is still pretty much the same from 2010. What's changed is V8 getting updated to newer versions (and thereby supporting new ES features) and other performance optimizations. But no one can't deny or take away the creator credit from Ryan.

Re: The Deno Company

#167

Post by brundolf »

sublimefire wrote: post #81

Deno makes sense in a variety of situations. The build pipelines of Typescript are excessively complicated and Deno hides that complication away (less dev effort). Furthermore Node has its own maintenance/risk issues in production systems (think permissions), and Deno reduces those with custom built runtimes. I cannot see it replacing Node though. Node has created a vast ecosystem that includes modules (npmjs), clien…

I think the JS ecosystem has such a huge amount of raw developer-attention that even if Deno only gets 10% of the market, that's probably enough to bootstrap all those foundational packages/frameworks.

Also: if you're porting from Node, the only things that really have to change are the system/IO API calls. The import style is a bit different but that could pretty much be automated. It's still just TypeScript at the end of the day; your core logic will be the same.

Re: The Deno Company

#169

Post by ianwalter »

beaconstudios wrote: post #65
pharmakom wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or use the ubiquitous NPM to install a promise orientated package... I don’t see this as a big problem honestly.

I'm not sure what you think could qualify Node as not keeping with the times, if not implementing the modern standard for async interfaces isn't it.

I agree with you that it would be nice if more of core supported promises, but I think there are probably plenty of examples of them keeping up with the times or charging ahead as well. Top-level await and optional chaining are a couple features that come to mind.

Re: The Deno Company

#170

Post by sublimefire »

Freknf wrote: post #138
sublimefire wrote: post #81

Deno makes sense in a variety of situations. The build pipelines of Typescript are excessively complicated and Deno hides that complication away (less dev effort). Furthermore Node has its own maintenance/risk issues in production systems (think permissions), and Deno reduces those with custom built runtimes. I cannot see it replacing Node though. Node has created a vast ecosystem that includes modules (npmjs), clien…

>All in all Javascript interpreter is becoming something like a JVM. Everyone wants to use it but without writing vanilla Javascript. Except not because lots of people prefer to write JavaScript and those other JVM languages are usually less verbose rather than more verbose.

But why people create Coffescript, Typescript, Kotlin (which compiles to JS), and many more? Why are we compiling ES7,ES8,ES9 to compatible version of basic javascript then? Why do we use wasm?

I think this shows the lack of willingness to write a vanilla, all-compatible javascript. Also it seems people use new features without understanding how those get compiled to a lower version.

Sorry when I meant vanilla I did not mean ES9.

Post reply on HN