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.
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.
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?
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.)
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?...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
You are running a circular argument. What determines stability for a programming language. Running code? I've got plenty of that. Not crashing? I've seen no more crashes on 1.1 of io.js than I have on 0.10 of node, which I also consider to be perfectly stable for production applications, as I run several. So I say again, for what values of stable? Failing tests only indicate a change. Is something broken for you?
Please cite your io.js source for their statement of maintaining 100% compatibility with all node modules. I can't find any reference to that anywhere. NPM is certainly usable, as I use it daily with io.js, which fits their websites statement of "This project began as a fork of Joyent's Node.js™ and is compatible with the npm ecosystem.".
Still nothing credible in this thread, move along.
> io.js is an npm compatible platform originally based on node.js™.
Sorry, they were aiming for 100% tests passing [1], I would assume for npm compatibility which is their primary goal.
A stable API means that dependent packages don't have to change to stay compatible. Tests are failing because they change things that broke packages:
* Node-inspector does not work with io.js! How is anyone supposed to debug their code? [2]
* Fibers do not work [3]
* msgpack does not work [4]
* sqlite3... there is a long list [5]
There is no CI, no debugger, tests aren't passing, major modules don't work. I absolutely cannot go to my CEO and make a bet on that for my company.
I think io.js is great! But the amount of misinformation about the state of Node is staggering. Let anyone with proof otherwise also cite their sources.
You're quite active in spreading FUD in this thread. Please stop.
Node 0.12 was released and ships with v8 3.28.73. Most (if not all) of the bug reports you cite refer to needing NAN 1.5 which fixes issues with v8 > 3.28. NAN is used by both io.js modules AND node.js modules.
Both io.js and node.js 0.12 have a v8 > 3.28. All those modules are also broken in Node 0.12 because the underlying v8 API changed.
As pointed out by others, the node.js tests are only passing because some last minute shenanigans so they could claim all their tests were passing "but io.js' tests are not."
Well, sqlite3, as an example didn't work for node 0.11.x either... and they had no intention of supporting it until 0.12.x, and not sure if they're even there yet...
Compiled modules are generally more tied to the version of V8 that node/iojs is bound to, depending on that library's interface needs. This is why many libraries are written, rewritten and using javascript-only, so that they can run everywhere. For that matter, many compiled modules didn't work right in windows until well after 0.10 was first released, and some still don't.
Heroku supports iojs, but I suppose that meets the definition of "almost no one" when you scope it to all available PaaS options worldwide.
> io.js kept mum until the last moment before their release, with an invite-only codebase.
This is factually inaccurate. Fedor Indutny created the iojs fork on November 26th. The 1.0 release came out on January 13th, significantly less than 6 months. The iojs repo was always public.
The project you're referring to was the node-forward/node repo, which was initially public and forced to be made private due to Joyent's trademark.
> On July 11, Mikeal Rogers created a private node-forward repository under his personal GitHub account to discuss the future direction of Node.js.
> Io.js continues the work that was previously being done by Node Forward in the node-forward/node repository. We hope to merge with the original Node.js project at some point in the future.
The "fork threats" started in 2013. [1]
It would have been simple to rename node-forward and keep it public, odd to blame Joyent for their choice to continue trademark infringement in private?
Previous to its release, io.js supporters spammed HN with multiple contentless links about its release. [2] No explanation to the community, raised a ton of questions and did not provide answers except within their insular circle.
Everyone is trying so hard to be part of something new and trendy, that they are blind to the facts in front of them.
I don't know the exact history of node-forward, but node-forward/node was only a piece of the node-forward repository. Early on it was my impression was that node-forward was just about collecting pain points in the node ecosystem and working towards those pain points (technical or not). The fork came later.
The fork threats you mention don't seem to have anything to do with node-forward. In addition, the article clearly states that "Roth told VentureBeat his company does not intend to fork Node" so these fork threats were not reality.
As for why they didn't rename node-forward/node? Well the previously linked article explains it quite well "We agreed to make the repository private in order to show our commitment to working with Joyent on improving Node.js."
I should clarify, there are lots of smart people using and occasionally contributing to node outside the inner circle of core contributors, many of whom will be using node (i.e. not io.js) for a long time. I was wrong to suggest otherwise.
I agree io.js has generated some of its own hype; that's why I'm surprised Joyent has distanced themselves from it. Node is coasting on a lot of previous hype, but io.js is poised to steal the proverbial thunder. "Node is stable," AKA "Node isn't going to change or disrupt anything," is meanwhile a powerful argument, maybe especially to Joyent's customers, but that isn't always a good thing (think IE6), and it definitely isn't a good way to build hype.
