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

IO.js – Evented I/O for V8 javascript

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 48 posts

Re: IO.js – Evented I/O for V8 javascript

#21

Post by logicchains »

Skywing wrote: post #8
_almosnow wrote: post #6

With the few forks and stances that everyone is taking now, I really hope that an amazing project like Node doesn't get f * up by becoming fragmented and multiple different "versions" appearing.

sigh time to start looking into Go

Or Dart. It's a lot closer to node and JS than Go (it uses asynchronous IO), and can more easily be used across both the server and client (Go's compilation-to-Javascript support is less developed). It's also surprisingly fast for a dynamic language, and has the generics Go lacks.

Re: IO.js – Evented I/O for V8 javascript

#22

Post by drderidder »

doublerebel wrote: post #12
randall wrote: post #4

Can someone tl;dr me the gist of everyone's beef with joyent? I've been hearing about a fork but haven't understood / seen why people feel like the fork is necessary.

Yes, the forkers are doing themselves a disservice. Joyent is accused of not communicating with the community, and yet the forkers respond by also not communicating with the community [EDIT: they have refused multiple opportunities to comment, Joyent is publicly appearing to make a consolation effort]. If Node wants to be taken seriously by a broader range of companies, it should be stable. There are forkers on the J…

This has been brewing for a year and a lot of people in the community felt it was inevitable [1]. Plenty of early node people were never keen on Joyent's grab in the first place.

The idea that the majority of core contribs are being uncommunicative is not really borne out by the growing community around node-forward and how open it actually is. They've set up live chat, a mentors list, help pages, given access to anybody who asks to the fork and are actively seeking input on new features like better numerical comp libs. It probably seems less communicative than it really is only because they want to wait till the concept is past nascent stage to announce anything. Totally not surprised that people have gotten fed up with Joyent and that forks are happening.

  1 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nodejs/mqSf47HhmyY

Re: IO.js – Evented I/O for V8 javascript

#23

Post by scljstcwombat »

elisee wrote: post #14
randall wrote: post #4

Can someone tl;dr me the gist of everyone's beef with joyent? I've been hearing about a fork but haven't understood / seen why people feel like the fork is necessary.

I don't have very specific details as I'm a bystander too but it seems Node has been stuck in 0.10.x land since early 2013 ( http://blog.nodejs.org/2013/03/11/node-v0-10-0-stable/ ) while Node 0.12 and 1.0 releases were being talked about well over a year ago by former BDFL Isaac Schlueter (now at npm). Joyent, the current project stewards, have not been able to deliver a stable release in that time and don't share p…

> Joyent, the current project stewards, have not been able to deliver a stable release in that time and don't share public plans / aren't communicating very much.

They probably don't want to publicly call out one of the core committers whose promised work is lagging. Or admit that the previous project lead was a poor choice who let it stagnate (but yet is inexplicably in the "Joyent did a bad job" camp). What good would that do anyone, apart from satisfy our boundless curiosity?

Re: IO.js – Evented I/O for V8 javascript

#26

Post by scljstcwombat »

drderidder wrote: post #22
doublerebel wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the forkers are doing themselves a disservice. Joyent is accused of not communicating with the community, and yet the forkers respond by also not communicating with the community [EDIT: they have refused multiple opportunities to comment, Joyent is publicly appearing to make a consolation effort]. If Node wants to be taken seriously by a broader range of companies, it should be stable. There are forkers on the J…

This has been brewing for a year and a lot of people in the community felt it was inevitable [1]. Plenty of early node people were never keen on Joyent's grab in the first place. The idea that the majority of core contribs are being uncommunicative is not really borne out by the growing community around node-forward and how open it actually is. They've set up live chat, a mentors list, help pages, given access to any…

> actively seeking input on new features like better numerical comp libs

That is one of the most comedic issues on github. Worth a read, but tl;dr:

"all we need is to compile these ancient libraries! It should be easy, they are ancient and I am async!" ... "I failed to compile these ancient libraries."

https://github.com/node-forward/discussions/issues/1

Re: IO.js – Evented I/O for V8 javascript

#27

Post by doublerebel »

drderidder wrote: post #22
doublerebel wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the forkers are doing themselves a disservice. Joyent is accused of not communicating with the community, and yet the forkers respond by also not communicating with the community [EDIT: they have refused multiple opportunities to comment, Joyent is publicly appearing to make a consolation effort]. If Node wants to be taken seriously by a broader range of companies, it should be stable. There are forkers on the J…

This has been brewing for a year and a lot of people in the community felt it was inevitable [1]. Plenty of early node people were never keen on Joyent's grab in the first place. The idea that the majority of core contribs are being uncommunicative is not really borne out by the growing community around node-forward and how open it actually is. They've set up live chat, a mentors list, help pages, given access to any…

There is anything but a consensus at that link, many of the commenters at that link believe a fork and/or change of stewardship is a bad choice.

This is an open-source project, and Joyent's repo has always been open. Node-forward and io.js's silence and secrecy can only invite suspicion in this situation. If contributors don't like Joyent's direction, kill them with kindness. Overwhelm node with useful PRs that have a ton of community support behind them. Playing these games IMHO is only bad for the community and for Node's image. Joyent seems to understand this.

I am trying to form an opinion to support Node's positive evolution and I shouldn't have to petition for access to contribute. That is exactly the excuse the forkers are using to justify their fork, and they're guilty of the same.

Re: IO.js – Evented I/O for V8 javascript

#28

Post by Bahamut »

logicchains wrote: post #21
Skywing wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sigh time to start looking into Go

Or Dart. It's a lot closer to node and JS than Go (it uses asynchronous IO), and can more easily be used across both the server and client (Go's compilation-to-Javascript support is less developed). It's also surprisingly fast for a dynamic language, and has the generics Go lacks.

Should also mention that Dart is faster than Node - it benefits from Google's development of V8, and the language design was built for optimization while taking a lot of the good parts from JS.

Re: IO.js – Evented I/O for V8 javascript

#29

Post by invisible »

girvo wrote: post #11
jared314 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joyent is accused of: 1. Fixating on platform stability over project evolution 2. Ignoring the community on project direction 3. Preserving public image over project committers 4. Being a total square NOTE: I am against the fork.

> 1. Fixating on platform stability over project evolution That's... hardly a bad thing, in my humble opinion. The other language I use at work, PHP, is a case-study in what happens when you "evolve" a project willy-nilly with little regard to platform stability. Nowadays, it's better, because the community has become more involved in the process, so I can see what #2 and #3 are Bad Things™ however.

Unfortunately, I think node.js is still lacking in a lot of regards that a brief spurt of "willy-nilly" commits (plus some dictatorship-style thoughtfulness) would help. Many of the builtin modules are still "beta" and even core stable ones lack some features that require using unsupported/undocumented properties (it is not even clear why some of it is undocumented).

I use node.js in production so I'm not knocking it outright but you quickly understand the plights if you try to do anything with node that scales well.

Re: IO.js – Evented I/O for V8 javascript

#30

Post by denisw »

benatkin wrote: post #17
stormbrew wrote: post #3

40 minutes, 8 points, got to the front page, and... why? Is there a story behind this fork?

There doesn't appear to be much of one, yet. The latest commit by indutny was just a commit to node that the owner of the iojs GitHub organization pushed to GitHub. There are no public members of the iojs organization. Even the name of the repo, "evented I/O for v8 javascript" is the same. All that's been introduced here is a new name, io.js.

Looking at the v0.12 branches of both iojs/iojs and joyent/node, it doesn't seem to me that idutny's latest commit (updating OpenSSL to 1.0.1j) was a commit to Node proper. I also can't find that commit in any other branch of Node, or on idutny's personal copy of Node (idutny/node).

In fact, the history of Node and IO.js seem to completely diverge after Nov 21, with no overlap between the commits or contributors. To me, this seems to clearly indicate that the committors in these last IO.js commits are also the people behind that effort. Am I missing something?

Post reply on HN