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

51–60 of 446 posts

Re: The Deno Company

#51

Post by pharmakom »

beaconstudios wrote: post #33
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?

Node is only just now getting around to adding promise based APIs to the core. Any time you interact with the Node core APIs you have to drop back to using callbacks - that's at least one area where Node is behind the times.

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

Re: The Deno Company

#52

Post by jokethrowaway »

sbarre wrote: post #26
kostarelo wrote: post #8

> Extending web programming beyond the browser is not a novel idea. Indeed, we have done that with moderate success in our “Node.js” project. But over a decade later, we find server-side JavaScript hopelessly fragmented, deeply tied to bad infrastructure, and irrevocably ruled by committees without the incentive to innovate. As the browser platform moves forward at a rapid pace, server-side JavaScript has stagnated.…

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 avoiding Python after the 2to3 migration).

Re: The Deno Company

#53

Post by DyingAdonis »

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.

Looks like CDN with Serverless edge functions.

https://deno.com/deploy

Re: The Deno Company

#54

Post by throwaway99x99 »

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.

> 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)

or like Joyent

Re: The Deno Company

#55

Post by timqian »

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…

I guess the "commercial applications" should be https://deno.com/deploy

Re: The Deno Company

#56

Post by croes »

rukshn wrote: post #19
lucacasonato wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The blog post specifically says that that will not happen

Yes, but Facebook said it will not monetize WhatsApp, and something similar when they bought WhatsApp Instagram. We all know how that turned out to be History repeats itself, the above two are the recent incidents that comes to my mind

And you will never need a FB account for Oculus

Re: The Deno Company

#57

Post by iends »

psim1 wrote: post #50

> Of these, the web browser scripting language (JavaScript) is the fastest, most popular, and the only one with an industrial standardization process. Most popular, I can agree. Fastest, & only one with industrial standardization process? Have they met Erlang? edit: you have to be kidding me, downvoted to oblivion for an honest observation. Sorry I hurt javascript's feelings.

Erlang is compiled to bytecode, right? So is it considered a scripting language?

Re: The Deno Company

#58

Post by franciscop »

not_knuth wrote: post #49
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…

Glad to see I'm not the only one having a hard time figuring out just how they intend to make money. My best guess was that they will offer a tailored Deno to companies that want to embed it (my comment about it is swimming somewhere here). Other than that, there is the following vague statement at the end of the post: > The Deno company hopes to enable the millions of web programmers out there to maximally leverage…

Ah I read that statement in the end like it'll enable front-end devs to also write back-end code, like Node.js but better (APIs follow more the browser than in Node.js), but I didn't think it'd be related to the monetization?

Re: The Deno Company

#59

Post by csbartus »

I'm very pleased Javascript / Node evolves. But thanks, too late, I'll skip it as soon as possible. It has so many unpleasant surprises. I'll move the ladder up, to something which compiles to Javascript, or whatever else, but no Javascript anymore please.

Re: The Deno Company

#60

Post by nindalf »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #9
ignoramous wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From there I stopped reading. Why? Is it https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6845286 ? Because the next paragraph goes: 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. We do not want to find ourselves in the unfortunate position where we have to…

"it must remain permissively free." ... until the VCs change their mind or AWS uses our code to make more money than we do.

I just don't understand this. This project uses distributed version control. This implies 2 things

1. It is impossible to delete every copy of this project. If the authors wanted to restrict access by taking the repo private, they can't. It will always be out there.

2. Every commit is licensed with MIT. So even if there is a licensing change, you have access to every commit licensed by MIT. You've lost nothing except rights to future work.

Even if they change their mind, you can still use their existing code to run your software. If it's popular enough to be forked by the community, you can use the fork if you prefer.

You only need to be concerned if you're heavily invested on their platform and it's not popular enough for community support and you need new features added. In this unlikely scenario, yes, you won't have any option but to buy in to their new business model.

Post reply on HN