I love that there is a real effort for open source projects to seek distributed funding from the people getting benefit from all the hard work the contributors do. I don't have to buy a license, but I can support the projects I use regularly and it feels like the best of both worlds. I do wonder how sustainable funding will impact the rate of change in the Open Source / Javascript community. If you are actively investing in a project are you less likely to replace it as quickly with "the next thing" or volunteer to improve the tools that you are already using and donating to? It will be interesting to see!
I really don’t like this attempt to seek donations for open source projects.
As an employee I don’t want to donate my wage for tools I need for work. I would pay for a certification that demonstrates my knowledge.
As a business owner, I can’t donate to something without a clear business case. I can pay for certification because I can use that for promotion and as I recently found out having employees certified can reduce insurance costs.
Open-source needs to learn how to work with business if it wants to not have to beg for donations. But I think a lot of the people who run open-source projects enjoy the piety that comes with begging for their noble projects survival.
Random and specific issue, does anyone know the current status of tree-shaking in three.js? There was some issue with not being able to shake through Object.defineProperty: https://github.com/mrdoob/three.js/issues/10711
This is how we are doing it in webpack, i think rollup can alias as well:
webpack.config.js
alias: {
three$: path.resolve('./three.js')
}
and a local copy of three.js
// Only export the things that are actually needed, cut out everything else
export { WebGLRenderer } from 'three/src/renderers/WebGLRenderer.js';
export { ShaderLib } from 'three/src/renderers/shaders/ShaderLib.js';
export { UniformsLib } from 'three/src/renderers/shaders/UniformsLib.js';
...
It splits a fine-grained module graph into coarse-grained vanilla ES modules with zero duplication across fragments and no artificial overheads, e.g. no wrapping internal modules inside functions, and no runtime loader infrastructure.
One thing about open collective is that some packages are starting to include a post-install script that says "please donate via open collective".
For example, installing my react boilerplate package would install the bundlesize package as a dependency which would then show a prompt to donate via opencollective but not to my project, but rather the bundlesize project.
It has since been removed[0] but it is kind of misleading.
10 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 28.5 ms ] threadAs an employee I don’t want to donate my wage for tools I need for work. I would pay for a certification that demonstrates my knowledge.
As a business owner, I can’t donate to something without a clear business case. I can pay for certification because I can use that for promotion and as I recently found out having employees certified can reduce insurance costs.
Open-source needs to learn how to work with business if it wants to not have to beg for donations. But I think a lot of the people who run open-source projects enjoy the piety that comes with begging for their noble projects survival.
webpack.config.js
and a local copy of three.js(Which is mentioned nowhere in that announcement.)
It splits a fine-grained module graph into coarse-grained vanilla ES modules with zero duplication across fragments and no artificial overheads, e.g. no wrapping internal modules inside functions, and no runtime loader infrastructure.
A simple idea done well.
For example, installing my react boilerplate package would install the bundlesize package as a dependency which would then show a prompt to donate via opencollective but not to my project, but rather the bundlesize project.
It has since been removed[0] but it is kind of misleading.
[0]: https://github.com/siddharthkp/bundlesize/issues/167