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

Prepack helps make JavaScript code more efficient

prepack.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 233 posts

Re: Prepack helps make JavaScript code more efficient

#211

Post by andreyf »

djur wrote: post #173
derefr wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents doesn't mean "nobody is allowed to use it"; patents mean "you are required to license the patent from the patent-holder, which usually requires paying royalties." I could totally see the point of a FOSS software project that implements a patented algorithm, where people work together to improve the thing but everyone who uses it still has to get a license from the patent-holder. (For a recently-top-of-mind ex…

I think the situation you mention has a significant distinction: Fraunhofer (or whoever) would presumably advertise that they expect you to get a patent license to use the code in a product. Either they'd explicitly state that up front, or their lawyers would say it with the first politely worded letter to someone who starts using the "open source" code. Software distributed under those terms would no longer adhere t…

> It might not stand up in court, but I do think it's obviously unethical to release patent-encumbered "FOSS" without mentioning your patents and then demand users obtain a license after the fact.

I would be amazed if something like this does not stand up in court. Read the BSD license — it's really relatively simple english.

Re: Prepack helps make JavaScript code more efficient

#212

Post by andreyf »

eropple wrote: post #159
andreyf wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like FUD. When has a simple license like BSD been interpreted to not grant rights to the patents implemented in the technology being licensed? The language there is really clear.

I don't know. Turn it around: when has it been interpreted to grant rights to patents implemented? Is there case law that establishes estoppel for such a thing? Has it been tested? Are your lawyers good enough? These are questions that you should be asking because the name of the game is minimizing risk .

Still FUD. When someone distributes something under BSD and spends non-negligible resources promoting that software, they lose the ability to sue people for using it, because the language of the license says "you may use this". The risk is 0 and I would be surprised if this has even been argued in court because it's so trivially clear.

Re: Prepack helps make JavaScript code more efficient

#213

Post by eropple »

andreyf wrote: post #212
eropple wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know. Turn it around: when has it been interpreted to grant rights to patents implemented? Is there case law that establishes estoppel for such a thing? Has it been tested? Are your lawyers good enough? These are questions that you should be asking because the name of the game is minimizing risk .

Still FUD. When someone distributes something under BSD and spends non-negligible resources promoting that software, they lose the ability to sue people for using it, because the language of the license says "you may use this". The risk is 0 and I would be surprised if this has even been argued in court because it's so trivially clear.

Don't be "surprised if", don't make blurfy engineer claims--cite your sources or withdraw your claims of safety that do nothing but encourage other people to undertake risk on behalf of your ideology.

The sooner the software developers of the world realize that there are reasons that we hire lawyers for legal tasks just like we hire programmers for programming tasks, the better. The profound arrogance you are choosing to exhibit regarding complex professions you don't fully understand is one of the absolute worst things in tech.

Re: Prepack helps make JavaScript code more efficient

#214

Post by Hydraulix989 »

voltagex_ wrote: post #158
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How much marketshare do you think that Javascript will lose once WebAssembly gets mainstream?" I'm no fortuneteller, but I suspect that people writing the most demanding client applications for web will be very happy when it does. Browser-desktop convergence wasn't meant to happen through JS, and after the proliferation of the hacks that we have today to get around inherent design flaws in the language, it really sh…

> are the forcing function behind using Electron instead of building a real desktop app. I have to work hard to not fall into this way of thinking most of the time. I am as frustrated as you with the proliferation of Electron apps. But a lot of the time it boils down to: Application X would not exist if Electron did not exist. Cross platform dev is hard . More programmers, no matter what language they use, is a posit…

Right, that's a bit more descriptive way of what I meant when I said "human resource allocation."

> "After all, how many people are still using the first programming language they started with?"

Is the answer to your rhetorical question here supposed to be "a lot"? Because anybody who has programmed a long enough time has had to switch languages to keep up with ever-evolving technology.

You're right, a lot of people on HN who started coding around 2013 when the web/mobile bubble started inflating learned JS and haven't touched anything else.

If you've been coding since the 1990s or even 2000s, JS was definitely not your first language (ECMAScript wasn't anywhere close to being capable of doing the things it is now up to even 2006), and so you're likely equipped with the necessary skill set to build a real desktop app.

So even if you learned JS as your first language, it's not TOO unreasonable to be expected learn something else like Python, C#/.NET, or C++ that is a bit more suited for desktop app development.

But, yes, when you have a market flooded with JS developers and bootcamp grads, THAT is the forcing function for using Electron because C++ developers are now VERY tough to hire. They're all doing the most hardcore infrastructure projects at the likes of Facebook, or they're working on bare-metal performance optimization at NVIDIA, or they're working on ML infrastructure for self-driving cars, or they're doing high frequency trading in New York.

Your run-of-the-mill seed-stage startup just doesn't have the budget for someone who knows C++ really well because even the big companies struggle finding and hiring them. With things like pointers and DIY memory management, C++ programming is HARD and easy to shoot yourself in the foot by making simple mistakes that aren't even possible to make in higher-level languages like JS.

Luckily, there's plenty of other languages out there for building real desktop apps that aren't JS or C++.

Re: Prepack helps make JavaScript code more efficient

#215

Post by Hydraulix989 »

_pmf_ wrote: post #177
voltagex_ wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> are the forcing function behind using Electron instead of building a real desktop app. I have to work hard to not fall into this way of thinking most of the time. I am as frustrated as you with the proliferation of Electron apps. But a lot of the time it boils down to: Application X would not exist if Electron did not exist. Cross platform dev is hard . More programmers, no matter what language they use, is a posit…

> More programmers, no matter what language they use, is a positive thing. Lowering the barrier to entry via things like Chrome Dev Tools, Electron and related technologies is a good thing. Why? Are more plumbers also a good thing, even though this reduces the average wage of the plumber and the quality of plumbing?

This sounds a lot like the taxi driver argument against Uber/Lyft to me.

Re: Prepack helps make JavaScript code more efficient

#216

Post by Hydraulix989 »

SquareWheel wrote: post #45
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I appreciate your vigilantism (given you aren't actually a moderator nor do you work at FB), the real elephant in the room is that HN really needs to a better solution for vote collusion. I am already familiar with the guidelines, and I usually follow this rule to a tee, but the optics here are damning. What I'd really like to see is this discussion steered back on topic. It was originally interesting and produ…

Frankly I only downvoted because of the unfounded accusations of Facebook shilling. There's a certain level of pretentiousness in thinking one's comments could only ever be downvoted because somebody was literally paid to do it. And that attitude rubs me the wrong way. To bring it back to the discussion itself, I'm also a huge fan of web technologies, so I'm always glad to see further optimizations being made. I'm he…

Continuing the discussion means not opportunistically taking a cheap shot first. :(

Re: Prepack helps make JavaScript code more efficient

#217

Post by Hydraulix989 »

sctb wrote: post #82
Hydraulix989 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I appreciate your vigilantism (given you aren't actually a moderator nor do you work at FB), the real elephant in the room is that HN really needs to a better solution for vote collusion. I am already familiar with the guidelines, and I usually follow this rule to a tee, but the optics here are damning. What I'd really like to see is this discussion steered back on topic. It was originally interesting and produ…

Baseless accusations of collusion and shillage aren't OK on Hacker News. We care a lot about vote quality and we're more than happy to take a look at specific cases if you have concerns, but please email us at hn@ycombinator.com so that the discussion here can continue.

Sure. I emailed my feedback to you, thanks.

Re: Prepack helps make JavaScript code more efficient

#218

Post by kbutler »

abritinthebay wrote: post #205
kbutler wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't it the case that any patents that would affect the use of react/prepack would "dominate the product or any uses of the product..."? Yes, the grant is better than nothing, but also, the risk if the grant is removed seems minimal.

Any patents? Not at all. It's of course possible that they have (or will have) some that would be covered by an implicit grant - though you'd need to go to court to confirm that. But it's quite possible that they could have many patents that cover non-substancial parts. Guess what? You're now in violation of those if you haven't already licensed them. So, again, even in the best case the implicit grant still requires…

It seems very unlikely to find a way to use these products in an unintended way that would violate some tangentially related patent, but a) it's all hypothetical and b) one should never underestimate the ability and willingness of IP lawyers to allege an infringement.

"You have stored the software on electronic media and used that media as a doorstop, violating our access control patents by keeping the door open."

Hmm. Has that been filed yet?

Re: Prepack helps make JavaScript code more efficient

#219

Post by yladiz »

jaredklewis wrote: post #206
yladiz wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't edit my post since it's been too long, but I do want to clarify that when I say valid patent, I mean a patent that has been granted by the patent office and isn't held by a non practicing entity. I could easily see a company 1) using something Facebook has created, like React, for a VR based UI; 2) patenting something related to their VR technology; 3) Oculus making the same kind of technology and not paying…

Let me get this straight. - Facebook says, "hey you can use this software, no copyright strings attached." - Facebook says, "also, any patents we have to that software, here's a license. One stipulation, if you sue us for patent infringement, we revoke that license." - Your hypothetical company, let's call it Acme, seeing the value of getting to use great software, for free, with no copyright or patent royalties, tak…

Are you arguing that if you have a patent you shouldn't be able to get royalties on it, or arguing that patents aren't even necessary? I don't understand your argument. Facebook can do whatever they want with their patents, including license any patents related to the specific software, just like they could sue other companies for patent infringement.

You assume that I am making Acme out to be a victim, which isn't true. I'm arguing that Facebook should give a patent license that's more specific to the software they are licensing, e.g. React, Prepack, rather than a blanket license for any patents they ever get. For example, read the Apache 2 license, which is my preference for licenses that need a patent grant, as it's much more specific. You also assume that the strategy of getting patents is to use them to sue, which isn't true. You can get patents without suing, and the likely only reason you'd sue is if a company is willfully infringing upon a patent (e.g. won't license the patent).

Re: Prepack helps make JavaScript code more efficient

#220

Post by SquareWheel »

Hydraulix989 wrote: post #216
SquareWheel wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frankly I only downvoted because of the unfounded accusations of Facebook shilling. There's a certain level of pretentiousness in thinking one's comments could only ever be downvoted because somebody was literally paid to do it. And that attitude rubs me the wrong way. To bring it back to the discussion itself, I'm also a huge fan of web technologies, so I'm always glad to see further optimizations being made. I'm he…

Continuing the discussion means not opportunistically taking a cheap shot first. :(

You're right, but I also didn't realize until after I'd commented that I was replying to the same author as the parent poster.
Post reply on HN