10 ms·

Translation: io.js is what people want and Joyent feels threatened that they're not in control. So, they're making noise and dropping names to try to reinspire

by yessed 12y ago

Translation: io.js is what people want and Joyent feels threatened that they're not in control. So, they're making noise and dropping names to try to reinspire confidence, without actually promising anything. Joyent doesn't trade, but if they did they'd be losing a few percentage points today.

hayd 12y ago
and they say all this without mentioning io.js...
- chucksmart 12y ago
  Betamax is technically better than VHS.
_greim_ 12y ago
It baffles me how little they acknowledge io.js in their public communication. Node is a weirdly paradoxical community composed of a small, really smart core surrounded by a vast but shallow sea of lip service and hype. With this fork io.js has won pretty much all the mindshare of the small core, whereas Joyent is left with the hype, which is a house of cards waiting to fall. They ought to be chumming up to the really smart core if they don't want to fade into complete irrelevance soon.
- forthefuture 12y ago
  If anything it feels like io.js might make it out alive if Node turns into something akin to jQuery.
  - mwcampbell 12y ago
    Can you explain the comparison to jQuery? I wasn't aware that jQuery was dead.
    - richmarr 12y ago
      It's not dead, people have just taken to talking about Angular and React more. While all the new stuff has value, to me the value of frameworks will always lie in prototypes and small projects, with big production projects needing the flexibility of libraries. I don't think jQuery will be going anywhere until the DOM itself evolves past a need for it or we evolve past a need for the DOM
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    Could you clarify this? Have we stopped using jQuery? Actually I find myself switching back and forth between io and node with little trouble. If that becomes untenable, one might have to make choices, but we're not there yet.
    - forthefuture 12y ago
      Mostly in regards to pace of progress. Whenever the bureaucracy is smaller you can get more done faster. jQuery is just a good example of something that has become relatively bloated with time, with almost no real hope of ever improving to the point that it's not one of the first things you micro optimize out of your libraries.
      - jessaustin 12y ago
        Of course jQuery is bloated, but of course jQuery would be bloated by this time. The only way to have avoided that would have been to split out the compatibility layer and let people just load whatever portion of it they want. Then you'd have people complaining that when they load enough to support ie8 it seems bloated. b^) Also that architecture probably would have been an ongoing annoyance for jQuery maintenance. (EDIT: yes I know about v2, I'm just saying that what jQuery would become was pretty much decided, architecturally, long before that release.) It isn't clear that node had to go that direction, or even that they can't change course now.
        whichdan 12y ago
        http://jquery.com/browser-support/ http://jquery.com/browser-support/ jQuery 2.x dropped support for <= IE8.
- akbar501 12y ago
  Serious question re: With this fork io.js has won pretty much all the mindshare of the small core Who and how many of the earlier Node.js core developers are still developing for Node.js, how many are developing for io.js, and how many are developing for both?
  - smurfpandey 12y ago
    This should help you io.js contributors: https://github.com/iojs/io.js/graphs/contributors?from=2014-07-10&to=2015-02-10&type=c https://github.com/iojs/io.js/graphs/contributors?from=2014-... node.js contributors: https://github.com/joyent/node/graphs/contributors?from=2014-07-10&to=2015-01-31&type=c https://github.com/joyent/node/graphs/contributors?from=2014...
    - wamatt 12y ago
      Clicking on those links, I was surprised to discover io.js commits from as early as 2009. Some of us not following too closely, may have been under the wrong impression about io.js being a new initiative.
      - kevinschumacher 12y ago
        io.js is a fork of node.js, so the commit histories are the same prior to io.js becoming a thing. it is a new initiative.
        wamatt 12y ago
        Ahh, that makes more sense, tnx for clarifying (: I had no idea that's how GH designed the commit history UI. Also, it might be a nice bonus, if there was an indication of the fork, somewhere on the graph timeline.
  - _greim_ 12y ago
    Depends on what you mean by "still developing for Node.js" which is subjective. Going strictly off activity, the graphs on github[1][2] show node trending ever downward from a high back in early 2012, and iojs significantly spiking upward within the last few months, approaching 2012 levels. (Obviously all but the extreme right edge of both graphs share the same data.) [1] https://github.com/joyent/node/graphs/contributors https://github.com/joyent/node/graphs/contributors [2] https://github.com/iojs/io.js/graphs/contributors https://github.com/iojs/io.js/graphs/contributors
- doublerebel 12y ago
  That is total hyperbole. There are almost no PaaS that offer io.js hosting for production deployment. io.js is also beta, which is not a good idea to run production code. Node's community is much, much larger than HN's echo chamber. io.js kept mum until the last moment before their release, with an invite-only codebase. io.js also took quite a while (> 6 months, far longer if you count the first fork attempts) to get to the first release and actually open their community -- turns out that producing a stable runtime is harder than it looks! Let's call a spade a spade -- io.js is a great way to test out new functionality, but node.js is the stable, trusted version. io.js is the hype. It remains to be seen whether io.js will prove itself profitable for adoption.
  - crueber 12y ago
    I don't see a single factual statement here. io.js spent part of December in a rapid incubation, and released in early January. It's stable for me on several production applications, but what does 'stable' actually mean, vs 'beta'. Their community started open, and remains open, and has a larger contributing base than node by more than triple. They have an open technical committee, with meetings that anyone can attending (and I have). Here's the spade: You're wrong. Actually do your research, have facts that you can back up, and try again. Your tune will be very different when you have the facts.
    - doublerebel 12y ago
      io.js is not stable. Despite claiming the 1.x for semver, they have not reached their stated goal, which is to be 100% compatible with the node module ecosystem. Therefore countless modules which are stable on production Node, are broken on io.js [1]. Doesn't get much more clear than that. Hype. For example, there is no "build passing" badge on the io.js github, because the tests aren't passing [2]. Even if they were, no CI service is yet available -- so how can the community at large reliably test against it? [1] https://github.com/search?q=io.js&type=Issues&utf8=%E2%9C%93 https://github.com/search?q=io.js&type=Issues&utf8=%E2%9C%93 [2] https://jenkins-iojs.nodesource.com/ https://jenkins-iojs.nodesource.com/
      - 12y ago
- fapjacks 12y ago
  > a vast but shallow sea of lip service and hype This made water come out of my nose. You're absolutely right, and having spent the winter writing Go and not knowing about io.js (at least as "new node-forward"), it was instantly apparent to me that io.js has all the important mindshare, and now Joyent will be struggling.
- SEJeff 12y ago
  Reminds me when all of the original Hudson developers more or less left Oracle and founded the Jenkins project. Yeah, how many people you hear of using Hudson now a days?...
  - boobsbr 12y ago
    IBM does, don't ask me why.
adamkochanowicz 12y ago
That's pretty much how I read this. I don't see anything about them actually doing anything. Establishing a foundation? Why? "To get together!" To do what? "Partner with leaders in the industry!" No I get it, but what are you going to do, what is your trajectory? "Just ask these top names..."
Lazare 12y ago
> So, they're making noise and dropping names to try to reinspire confidence Have to say, the names they're dropping do not inspire confidence in me. Nobody on that last is well known for their stewardship of open source projects, to say the least.
ryan-allen 12y ago
It's kind of like when a kid has something taken away for being an asshole, the apologies and promises come quick and fast but you know they are disingenous. I can't imagine Joyent doing anything in good-faith, they are scared of losing relevancy and are looking to protect their interests, they don't give a flying cow about anything else but themselves. This would not have happened if io.js was not on the scene, call me cynical but I don't trust them. They bought Node on the off-chance it would be as big a cultural phenomenon as Rails, and they would own it and have control, rather than losing their golden blessing to Engine Yard back in the day.
- aspleenic 12y ago
  What golden blessing would that be?
  - ryan-allen 12y ago
    The "Official Ruby on Rails Hosting Provider", that they had back in the day, before it went to Engine Yard.

by yessed 12y ago

hayd 12y ago

and they say all this without mentioning io.js...

chucksmart 12y ago
Betamax is technically better than VHS.

_greim_ 12y ago

It baffles me how little they acknowledge io.js in their public communication. Node is a weirdly paradoxical community composed of a small, really smart core surrounded by a vast but shallow sea of lip service and hype. With this fork io.js has won pretty much all the mindshare of the small core, whereas Joyent is left with the hype, which is a house of cards waiting to fall. They ought to be chumming up to the really smart core if they don't want to fade into complete irrelevance soon.

forthefuture 12y ago
If anything it feels like io.js might make it out alive if Node turns into something akin to jQuery.
- mwcampbell 12y ago
  Can you explain the comparison to jQuery? I wasn't aware that jQuery was dead.
  - richmarr 12y ago
    It's not dead, people have just taken to talking about Angular and React more. While all the new stuff has value, to me the value of frameworks will always lie in prototypes and small projects, with big production projects needing the flexibility of libraries. I don't think jQuery will be going anywhere until the DOM itself evolves past a need for it or we evolve past a need for the DOM
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Could you clarify this? Have we stopped using jQuery? Actually I find myself switching back and forth between io and node with little trouble. If that becomes untenable, one might have to make choices, but we're not there yet.
  - forthefuture 12y ago
    Mostly in regards to pace of progress. Whenever the bureaucracy is smaller you can get more done faster. jQuery is just a good example of something that has become relatively bloated with time, with almost no real hope of ever improving to the point that it's not one of the first things you micro optimize out of your libraries.
    - jessaustin 12y ago
      Of course jQuery is bloated, but of course jQuery would be bloated by this time. The only way to have avoided that would have been to split out the compatibility layer and let people just load whatever portion of it they want. Then you'd have people complaining that when they load enough to support ie8 it seems bloated. b^) Also that architecture probably would have been an ongoing annoyance for jQuery maintenance. (EDIT: yes I know about v2, I'm just saying that what jQuery would become was pretty much decided, architecturally, long before that release.) It isn't clear that node had to go that direction, or even that they can't change course now.
      - whichdan 12y ago
        http://jquery.com/browser-support/ http://jquery.com/browser-support/ jQuery 2.x dropped support for <= IE8.
akbar501 12y ago
Serious question re: With this fork io.js has won pretty much all the mindshare of the small core Who and how many of the earlier Node.js core developers are still developing for Node.js, how many are developing for io.js, and how many are developing for both?
- smurfpandey 12y ago
  This should help you io.js contributors: https://github.com/iojs/io.js/graphs/contributors?from=2014-07-10&to=2015-02-10&type=c https://github.com/iojs/io.js/graphs/contributors?from=2014-... node.js contributors: https://github.com/joyent/node/graphs/contributors?from=2014-07-10&to=2015-01-31&type=c https://github.com/joyent/node/graphs/contributors?from=2014...
  - wamatt 12y ago
    Clicking on those links, I was surprised to discover io.js commits from as early as 2009. Some of us not following too closely, may have been under the wrong impression about io.js being a new initiative.
    - kevinschumacher 12y ago
      io.js is a fork of node.js, so the commit histories are the same prior to io.js becoming a thing. it is a new initiative.
      - wamatt 12y ago
        Ahh, that makes more sense, tnx for clarifying (: I had no idea that's how GH designed the commit history UI. Also, it might be a nice bonus, if there was an indication of the fork, somewhere on the graph timeline.
- _greim_ 12y ago
  Depends on what you mean by "still developing for Node.js" which is subjective. Going strictly off activity, the graphs on github[1][2] show node trending ever downward from a high back in early 2012, and iojs significantly spiking upward within the last few months, approaching 2012 levels. (Obviously all but the extreme right edge of both graphs share the same data.) [1] https://github.com/joyent/node/graphs/contributors https://github.com/joyent/node/graphs/contributors [2] https://github.com/iojs/io.js/graphs/contributors https://github.com/iojs/io.js/graphs/contributors
doublerebel 12y ago
That is total hyperbole. There are almost no PaaS that offer io.js hosting for production deployment. io.js is also beta, which is not a good idea to run production code. Node's community is much, much larger than HN's echo chamber. io.js kept mum until the last moment before their release, with an invite-only codebase. io.js also took quite a while (> 6 months, far longer if you count the first fork attempts) to get to the first release and actually open their community -- turns out that producing a stable runtime is harder than it looks! Let's call a spade a spade -- io.js is a great way to test out new functionality, but node.js is the stable, trusted version. io.js is the hype. It remains to be seen whether io.js will prove itself profitable for adoption.
- crueber 12y ago
  I don't see a single factual statement here. io.js spent part of December in a rapid incubation, and released in early January. It's stable for me on several production applications, but what does 'stable' actually mean, vs 'beta'. Their community started open, and remains open, and has a larger contributing base than node by more than triple. They have an open technical committee, with meetings that anyone can attending (and I have). Here's the spade: You're wrong. Actually do your research, have facts that you can back up, and try again. Your tune will be very different when you have the facts.
  - doublerebel 12y ago
    io.js is not stable. Despite claiming the 1.x for semver, they have not reached their stated goal, which is to be 100% compatible with the node module ecosystem. Therefore countless modules which are stable on production Node, are broken on io.js [1]. Doesn't get much more clear than that. Hype. For example, there is no "build passing" badge on the io.js github, because the tests aren't passing [2]. Even if they were, no CI service is yet available -- so how can the community at large reliably test against it? [1] https://github.com/search?q=io.js&type=Issues&utf8=%E2%9C%93 https://github.com/search?q=io.js&type=Issues&utf8=%E2%9C%93 [2] https://jenkins-iojs.nodesource.com/ https://jenkins-iojs.nodesource.com/
    - 12y ago
fapjacks 12y ago
> a vast but shallow sea of lip service and hype This made water come out of my nose. You're absolutely right, and having spent the winter writing Go and not knowing about io.js (at least as "new node-forward"), it was instantly apparent to me that io.js has all the important mindshare, and now Joyent will be struggling.
SEJeff 12y ago
Reminds me when all of the original Hudson developers more or less left Oracle and founded the Jenkins project. Yeah, how many people you hear of using Hudson now a days?...
- boobsbr 12y ago
  IBM does, don't ask me why.

adamkochanowicz 12y ago

That's pretty much how I read this. I don't see anything about them actually doing anything. Establishing a foundation? Why? "To get together!" To do what? "Partner with leaders in the industry!" No I get it, but what are you going to do, what is your trajectory? "Just ask these top names..."

Lazare 12y ago

> So, they're making noise and dropping names to try to reinspire confidence Have to say, the names they're dropping do not inspire confidence in me. Nobody on that last is well known for their stewardship of open source projects, to say the least.

ryan-allen 12y ago

It's kind of like when a kid has something taken away for being an asshole, the apologies and promises come quick and fast but you know they are disingenous. I can't imagine Joyent doing anything in good-faith, they are scared of losing relevancy and are looking to protect their interests, they don't give a flying cow about anything else but themselves. This would not have happened if io.js was not on the scene, call me cynical but I don't trust them. They bought Node on the off-chance it would be as big a cultural phenomenon as Rails, and they would own it and have control, rather than losing their golden blessing to Engine Yard back in the day.

aspleenic 12y ago
What golden blessing would that be?
- ryan-allen 12y ago
  The "Official Ruby on Rails Hosting Provider", that they had back in the day, before it went to Engine Yard.