6 ms·

Really interesting mix of npm packages, gulpfiles, jshint, both underscore and lodash, backbone.js, some stuff i've never really heard of like nedb which is pro

Really interesting mix of npm packages, gulpfiles, jshint, both underscore and lodash, backbone.js, some stuff i've never really heard of like nedb which is probably because its more specific to electron. It actually uses node-webkit NW.js instead of electron. It's an interesting mix of new and old things as a project that likely has changed hands many times. Like dayjs is pretty new.

nick_ 3y ago
The homogeneity of a JavaScript codebase has a tenth the half-life of an "enterprise" lang/framework. IMO this is because the JavaScript ecosystem is speedrunning the decades of lessons learned by the greater software engineering field.
- makeitrain 3y ago
  I have been half jokingly saying they’re rewriting php.
  - robertoandred 3y ago
    Good, PHP is an inconsistent intractable pain. Who thought referring to functions by the string value of their name was a good idea?
- ffsm8 3y ago
  Your pet theory is questionable, as the JavaScript (ecosystem) is one of the oldest that's still wildly used everywhere. The big libs have been pretty stable for the last decade though, even if the ecosystem itself feels quiet messy, likely because there are so many interested parties, each having their own ideas of how it should be. And it's also often the first language for a lot of beginners. ..
  - k__ 3y ago
    Users of "real programming languages" have peddled this narrative for decades. They are so mature and everything JS is just child's play...
    - nick_ 3y ago
      Eek. 1) I use JS/TS every day. 2) There are a great many people who are familiar with multiple languages, their ecosystems & culture, their history, and finally how they compare to each other. To imply that if you are critical of JS, you must be "on the other team", is a false dichotomy.
KennyBlanken 3y ago
It's also some real shady shit, requiring MacOS users use an unsigned installer package. There's no reason it should require an installer package when it can be distributed as a self-contained app. I'm not giving authorization to an unsigned installer file made by some anonymous Russians.
- NotPractical 3y ago
  The "unsigned" part isn't surprising, considering Apple would never approve it. But the installer package is far from ideal. It's typically only used when a program needs to install a privileged helper service, and I don't know why Popcorn Time would need that? Edit: It appears to be just a .app file? Unless the .pkg is bundled in there...
  - GeekyBear 3y ago
    > The "unsigned" part isn't surprising, considering Apple would never approve it. Apple doesn't have approval rights when you distribute Mac software outside their App Store. Signing just requires that you have a developer certificate and pass a virus scan.
    - NotPractical 3y ago
      Just based on the Apple developer documentation, it appears that you're correct: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... I was actually surprised not to at least see "your app must agree to abide by some basic terms of service" on the list of requirements. It seems like a mostly automatic system. At the same time, I would also be surprised if Apple were explicitly alerted by Hollywood lawyers of the fact that an app like Popcorn Time was endorsed in any way by them, and they didn't proceed to revoke the signature.
      - jrockway 3y ago
        I kind of doubt it. Right now Microsoft is paying money to distribute it to people (Github). Code signing is not really any stamp of approval from an "app store" type agency, it's more of a self-certification thing. It's similar to TLS on the Web; Let's Encrypt issuing a certificate says "Let's Encrypt checked that the website was able to receive traffic for the named domain on the issuance date", not "Let's Encrypt wishes that it made this website itself!"

nick_ 3y ago

The homogeneity of a JavaScript codebase has a tenth the half-life of an "enterprise" lang/framework. IMO this is because the JavaScript ecosystem is speedrunning the decades of lessons learned by the greater software engineering field.

makeitrain 3y ago
I have been half jokingly saying they’re rewriting php.
- robertoandred 3y ago
  Good, PHP is an inconsistent intractable pain. Who thought referring to functions by the string value of their name was a good idea?
ffsm8 3y ago
Your pet theory is questionable, as the JavaScript (ecosystem) is one of the oldest that's still wildly used everywhere. The big libs have been pretty stable for the last decade though, even if the ecosystem itself feels quiet messy, likely because there are so many interested parties, each having their own ideas of how it should be. And it's also often the first language for a lot of beginners. ..
- k__ 3y ago
  Users of "real programming languages" have peddled this narrative for decades. They are so mature and everything JS is just child's play...
  - nick_ 3y ago
    Eek. 1) I use JS/TS every day. 2) There are a great many people who are familiar with multiple languages, their ecosystems & culture, their history, and finally how they compare to each other. To imply that if you are critical of JS, you must be "on the other team", is a false dichotomy.

KennyBlanken 3y ago

It's also some real shady shit, requiring MacOS users use an unsigned installer package. There's no reason it should require an installer package when it can be distributed as a self-contained app. I'm not giving authorization to an unsigned installer file made by some anonymous Russians.

NotPractical 3y ago
The "unsigned" part isn't surprising, considering Apple would never approve it. But the installer package is far from ideal. It's typically only used when a program needs to install a privileged helper service, and I don't know why Popcorn Time would need that? Edit: It appears to be just a .app file? Unless the .pkg is bundled in there...
- GeekyBear 3y ago
  > The "unsigned" part isn't surprising, considering Apple would never approve it. Apple doesn't have approval rights when you distribute Mac software outside their App Store. Signing just requires that you have a developer certificate and pass a virus scan.
  - NotPractical 3y ago
    Just based on the Apple developer documentation, it appears that you're correct: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing_macos_software_before_distribution https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizin... I was actually surprised not to at least see "your app must agree to abide by some basic terms of service" on the list of requirements. It seems like a mostly automatic system. At the same time, I would also be surprised if Apple were explicitly alerted by Hollywood lawyers of the fact that an app like Popcorn Time was endorsed in any way by them, and they didn't proceed to revoke the signature.
    - jrockway 3y ago
      I kind of doubt it. Right now Microsoft is paying money to distribute it to people (Github). Code signing is not really any stamp of approval from an "app store" type agency, it's more of a self-certification thing. It's similar to TLS on the Web; Let's Encrypt issuing a certificate says "Let's Encrypt checked that the website was able to receive traffic for the named domain on the issuance date", not "Let's Encrypt wishes that it made this website itself!"