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

231–240 of 446 posts

Re: The Deno Company

#231

Post by cloverich »

kibleopard wrote: post #192

The issue with Deno, personally, is that it feels like it doesn’t deviate enough from NodeJS to even make it worth taking the time to learn/migrate projects over to it. From what I recall, the only really new and nice features are: a) sandboxed by default b) no need for a node_modules folder since you can directly import from a URL And is that really worth dumping loads of money into developing further? I just find i…

The standard library will be a killer feature. Even for people that know the existing ecosystem (as I do), as more libraries fall out of fashion or become abandoned, and people have to pick up (several) new libraries from scratch for basic tasks, they'll realize (as I did) its not actually any different than just using Deno. I don't know if that will be enough, but that's one of the angle's I'm watching closely now. I'm partly biased because I like playing with streams, and those can be a nightmare in Node.

Re: The Deno Company

#232

Post by fendy3002 »

kibleopard wrote: post #192

The issue with Deno, personally, is that it feels like it doesn’t deviate enough from NodeJS to even make it worth taking the time to learn/migrate projects over to it. From what I recall, the only really new and nice features are: a) sandboxed by default b) no need for a node_modules folder since you can directly import from a URL And is that really worth dumping loads of money into developing further? I just find i…

> I just find it hard to believe people are going to bother with Deno any time soon - we’ve gone too far down the NodeJS road.

It depends on migration effort. Take typescript for example, it's very similar with JS that migrate the codebase is not that painful. If the standard library and package manager can prove to highly useful, we'll see two possible scenario that aren't mutually exclusive:

1. People migrating to Deno

2. Newer nodejs version follow what Deno has

In the end it's good for us

Re: The Deno Company

#233

Post by hctaw »

dangoor wrote: post #118
nerdponx wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably a stupid question, but is AGPL/commercial dual-licensing a viable option for something like this? Instead of relying on goodwill donations & maybe assigning 1-2 devs from major corporations, just explicitly charge them money if they refuse to ship source code to end-users.

Many companies would just never touch an AGPL package, and while there are other languages out there with commercial licenses (e.g. Delphi), those are not nearly as mainstream as the open & freely available ones. Deno is competing against Node.js, which is MIT-licensed. Deno is arguably better, but it would have to be _so much better_ to get people to even give it a second look if it was commercial.

That's why you dual license, which is significantly more approachable. "This is AGPL/GPL unless you pay $200/month per developer seat" is a common licensing scheme for frameworks, people aren't scared by it.

Re: The Deno Company

#234

Post by nrmitchi »

notriddle wrote: post #230
nrmitchi wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I'm not going to argue the history of if/when he left the project, my understanding is that it's fairly agreed upon that he is the creator of Node.js. If you google "node js creator", he's an embedded answer (not a search result). The first line on Wikipedia in the nodejs history section is "Node.js was written initially by Ryan Dahl in 2009". You can make whatever point you want, but maybe try to do it without…

> If you google "node js creator", he's an embedded answer (not a search result). Embedded answers are worse than useless. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=who%20invented%20hands

Finding a exemplar of a bad response does not make the entire category "worse than useless".

Re: The Deno Company

#235

Post by steveklabnik »

hu3 wrote: post #219
kizer wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, Deno is using Rust extensively and V8 is the only "Chrome" part.

Didn't Mozilla fire a substantial amount of their Rust developers? And all Servo developers according to: https://paulrouget.com/bye_mozilla.html

No, they laid off a substantial amount of their Rust team, but the number of overall developers employed by Mozilla was quite small.

Mozilla continues to be interested in Rust even though they did that, they’re a founding sponsor of the Rust Foundation, for example, and are continuing to use Rust even though they do not employ people to work on the language itself.

Re: The Deno Company

#236

Post by jacobwg »

jedahan wrote: post #189

Trying to signup for Deno Deploy, it asks for the 'Act on your behalf' github permission to make an account. Clicking on 'Learn more about Deno Deploy' leads to https://github.com/apps/deno-deploy , which does not tell me more. What does 'act on your behalf' mean for Deno Deploy?

I believe it's a very poorly written description in the newer GitHub App permission system. My understanding it describes something akin to "can act on your behalf, but only in the scope of what other permissions are being requested" but it's overall very unclear wording.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26485844

Re: The Deno Company

#237

Post by frenchy »

hctaw wrote: post #233
dangoor wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many companies would just never touch an AGPL package, and while there are other languages out there with commercial licenses (e.g. Delphi), those are not nearly as mainstream as the open & freely available ones. Deno is competing against Node.js, which is MIT-licensed. Deno is arguably better, but it would have to be _so much better_ to get people to even give it a second look if it was commercial.

That's why you dual license, which is significantly more approachable. "This is AGPL/GPL unless you pay $200/month per developer seat" is a common licensing scheme for frameworks, people aren't scared by it.

In some places, the people who hold the purse strings are rather far removed from the actual developers, that it's a lot easier to just go with something that's "free".

I think this is one of the reasons why cloud computing monoliths like AWS are so successful. It's way easier to set up a $50/month VM on AWS then to get permission to spend $5/month on a VM elsewhere.

Re: The Deno Company

#238

Post by hitekker »

jokethrowaway wrote: post #52
sbarre wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no kidding.. shots fired... As someone who uses Node but doesn't closely follow the steering/proposals side of things, I can't say I had this impression of that process.. Is Node really that bad compared to how JS/ES is innovated on in the browser?

That's very subjective As an outsider who likes to lurk, I have the impression both ECMA and Node committees are stuck in the "we're nice and therefore right" field. They made technological choices that broke the platform (eg. require vs import). It took ages of pain to innovate on things that matter (eg. promises, async) I wish Deno the best, but I'll just try to stay away from JS from now on (same as I've been avoi…

> "we're nice and therefore right"

Golden phrase to describe a lot of folks. If I were to translate, it's behaving pleasantly and politely in order to justify poor decisions.

Re: The Deno Company

#239

Post by TheMagicHorsey »

This is probably unpopular here, but I wish people would just stop using Javascript on the server.

Well, I wish they would stop using it period, but at least in the browser it makes some sense.

Edit: to be clear, I have no beef with Typescript, Dart, Clojurescript, and the many other languages that compile into JS. It's JS itself I have issue with. I feel like it gives too much flexibility to young programmers to screw things up. There don't seem to be enough safeguards or training wheels. On large projects its my nightmare.

Re: The Deno Company

#240

Post by ravenstine »

A lot of people seem to think the difference between Deno and Node is trivial, but having actually used Deno, I think they're wrong. Here's why:

- Typescript as a first class citizen

- An actual `window` global with familiar browser APIs

- Sandboxing w/ permissions

- URL-based imports (no need for NPM)

- Bundling into self-contained binaries

- Things like top-level-await which Node.js still treats as experimental.

- Better-designed APIs than the Node standard lib (esp. when it comes to promises instead of callbacks)

To me, those aren't just minor details. This has the potential to create a new epoch in server-size JavaScript.

Post reply on HN