Great. Great for stable v8 in node, great for a node with all the new commits in the io.js branch, great for trademarks now being owned by the community.
Brilliant news for the entire node ecosystem! Having two competing implementations would not be ideal (even if they both support NPM). I hope under this new structure, the development will work at the speed of io.js. Well done to everyone involved!
I disagree. Having more than one competing implementation following the same standard would have been awesome. How likely it is that they would have followed the same standard rather than each branching off incompatibly is another question entirely...
The problem was that Node was based on a way older version of V8 with little sign of being ready to move on in the near future, and io.js users had access to all sorts of new features, so it was not a good thing for library authors - either you use the new features, and nobody using Node can use your library anymore, or you keep compatibility and have no advantage over just having Node.
They weren't really different implementations anywa - io.js was based on Node and most of the work they had done (as far as I know) was the move to the newer V8 engine version. So they were the same thing, just partially incompatible!
So it's really a great thing that they're merging, because it means that many more people can start actually using the new stuff!
I'm glad the community started looking into this option. Sometimes it's hard to work together with people after all the success of finally being free from them. Not that I wanted io.js to compromise, but it looks like it will be best for everyone. Thanks for all the hard work from people like Mikeal Rogers who worked on this when they could have been working on other things.
I've been waiting for a while for server-side JS to seem a little less like the wild west. One step closer to being willing to do more than play around with it. Glad to see this.
Microsoft's fork is meant to be temporary, experimental fork.
"This GitHub fork enables Node.js to optionally use the Chakra JavaScript engine on Windows 10, allowing Node.js to run on Windows on ARM. Our goal is to merge back into master after stabilizing this code, fixing key gaps and responding to early community feedback."
Their goal is to work on it, stabalize it, and then merge it back in once it's ready for general use. Microsoft's "fork" wasn't trying to split the community or create a permanent new path. It's to build something new for Node.js that shouldn't be in the main project until it's ready. Microsoft wasn't trying to split the community, but rather trying to take on an experimental project.
The io.js/Node.js situation wouldn't have been influenced by Microsoft's announcement. Node.js/io.js didn't necessarily have an intention of reuniting in the future and might have stayed apart. By contrast, Microsoft doesn't intend to split off from Node.js at all.
Thanks for all the explanation. I though ending something with :P - could be universally understood as a bit of irony. I'm just happy with the announcement, and used MS fork and this announcement timing for my irony-driven-comment. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
<3
I'm aware publishing GIFs on HN is off-topic and I realize this might be a bit childish but I couldn't help myself, and also, you sound like a lad with a sense of humor so you might appreciate it :P
This is great news. It's so common for open source projects to fork, and rarely do you see them join. I think this will be an overall win for both communities.
No, it wasn't a reaction to that misstep of Joyent's. The problem was that Joyent was not bringing in code and keeping the product up-to-date. The project had stagnated, and Joyent had shown that they were incapable of keeping a nascent, popular project growing in good order. iojs was born of developers being frustrated at being unable to develop, not as a political counterpoint.
iojs was created a year after Noordhuis's public flogging - that's a pretty slow counterpoint if it was the reason for iojs.
Im glad, but honestly want the project to be called io.js. I liked the name much better.
Note: this did come up in the TC meeting if anyone listened in. And they are keeping the branding alive and will decide what to do with it in the future.
Exactly. For me, the Node.js name is tarnished. The community hit the ground running with io.js and I believe it should have continued down that road. It would have come to replace Node.js in due time.
I think you are an outlier, though. When you are talking about mass appeal, a lot more people are aware of thee node name than io. There is no reason to have to rebuild the branding and awareness process.
I agree. As someone who just helped transition the main product of a company from polling towards socket.io + node.js, I can tell you the main name they know, somewhat understand and praise is "nodejs". To them that's the keyword to what made everything so quick and responsive. If I had to tell them at some point that actually nodejs was a bit behind and now we should move to io.js that would have been a bit confusing at least. Now, I can just be happy that "nodejs" will be the "awesome cutting edge tech" for me aswell as for them.
When "everyone" says "Use node" and every problem you need solve is solvable by googling "nodejs $problem" without anyone every anywhere mentioning iojs as a viable option, you can still be curious about your own tech-stach without knowing about the existence of forks.
I think you suffer from a too simplistic view of things.
I think the name Node works better, really. In writing both work fine, but in spoken language it's a bit easier to say/more distinctive in response to the question 'what are you using'.
I'm not deeply involved with the Node community, but on the surface this sounds like really exciting news. From what I understand core development has slowed down quite a bit with Node.js, and there were some issues with the governance model, and io.js set out to solve these problems? It would be awesome to get these benefits without having to split the community.
This is great news and makes me very happy. I wanted to switch us over to io.js but dreaded a future in which npm package only work on one or the other or maybe a npm and a iopm would exist. It's great to know that I don't need to worry about moving over and that my imaginary future will never come to be. Also glad both projects were able to reconcile their differences for the great good of node's future.
This is great news for the node community because a splinter would not have worked for any one. Hopefully, we can leave this behind us and continue to build great node apps.
This is a massive weight off of my shoulders, I can imagine it is for Joyent and IO contributors alike as well. While the fragmentation fortunately didn't get to the point where the two projects were disjointed, I knew the day would eventually come when IO was so far ahead issues with compatibility between Node and IO start arising. I am glad both parties and everyone involved approached this situation with an open mind and as a result of carefully planned out and a fair democratic decision was reached.
Now we might finally see promises land in Node.js (finally).
87 comments
[ 5.9 ms ] story [ 139 ms ] threadMikeal has more details here: https://github.com/iojs/io.js/issues/1664#issuecomment-10054...
Also great for jsdom (one of node's best features) soon running on node again!
They weren't really different implementations anywa - io.js was based on Node and most of the work they had done (as far as I know) was the move to the newer V8 engine version. So they were the same thing, just partially incompatible!
So it's really a great thing that they're merging, because it means that many more people can start actually using the new stuff!
Yeah whatever. Microsoft is no threat to FOS server-side solutions like nodejs, given their reputation. Nodejs is its own worse ennemy.
"This GitHub fork enables Node.js to optionally use the Chakra JavaScript engine on Windows 10, allowing Node.js to run on Windows on ARM. Our goal is to merge back into master after stabilizing this code, fixing key gaps and responding to early community feedback."
Their goal is to work on it, stabalize it, and then merge it back in once it's ready for general use. Microsoft's "fork" wasn't trying to split the community or create a permanent new path. It's to build something new for Node.js that shouldn't be in the main project until it's ready. Microsoft wasn't trying to split the community, but rather trying to take on an experimental project.
The io.js/Node.js situation wouldn't have been influenced by Microsoft's announcement. Node.js/io.js didn't necessarily have an intention of reuniting in the future and might have stayed apart. By contrast, Microsoft doesn't intend to split off from Node.js at all.
http://imgur.com/gallery/BkXYbMj/
Whoever else might see this post, I'm sorry, this is just such great news I had to celebrate somehow.
We won this, I hope next time they don't side track us from real coding over immature arguments. Always use codes of conduct and gender neutral docs.
iojs was created a year after Noordhuis's public flogging - that's a pretty slow counterpoint if it was the reason for iojs.
Note: this did come up in the TC meeting if anyone listened in. And they are keeping the branding alive and will decide what to do with it in the future.
Make of that what you like.
I think you suffer from a too simplistic view of things.
but thanks for the down votes. ;)
from where i am standing i see a lot of ego involved, among other things.
There will be a Technical Steering Committee in charge instead.
Now we might finally see promises land in Node.js (finally).