13 ms·
The Linux Foundation Unites the JavaScript Community for Open Web Development
- themihai 10y agoAnd when I thought we are about to get ride of JS(though wasm)... Still doesn't make any sense to me.
- stpapa 10y agoInterested to hear - what kind of effect will this have on the fragmentation we see in the JavaScript ecosystem?
- pluma 10y agoMost likely? None at all. But it might ensure the long-term survival of some popular libraries that could otherwise eventually die off (kinda like Apache). Case in point: https://medium.com/webpack/sustaining-webpack-for-the-future-part-2-7055282d7864 https://medium.com/webpack/sustaining-webpack-for-the-future...
- kowdermeister 10y ago#927 :)
- gerbal 10y agoFrom my perspective the main benefit of this is there is now a non profit that can take over administration of JS projects the community values but the original developers want to abandon.
- adrianratnapala 10y agoHas such an argangment ever worked in practice? I have read here on HN about how the Apache brand is used as a dumping ground for zombie projects. Why would it be different for the Linux Foundation?
- staticvar 10y agoPerhaps the original developers don't want to abandon these projects, the companies they work for are just not prioritizing funding their development. By placing the Open Source project under non-profit foundation ownership, that foundation can fundraise for their projects as a whole and then hire (at least for some hours) the original developers under that funding. I'm putting words in the JS Foundation's mouth though. It's not what they are saying in that press release.
- Semiapies 10y agoAre they going to do this, however?
- cdnsteve 10y ago"aims to drive broad adoption and ongoing development of key JavaScript solutions and related technologies and to facilitate collaboration within the JavaScript development community to ensure those projects maintain the quality and diverse contribution bases that provide for long-term sustainability." Does this mean this new foundation will be offering funding for projects?
- kowdermeister 10y agoI don't see the need for this to cherry pick a few project and push them with the Linux brand. The JS landscape is fragmented for a good reason and I don't see that as problem in fact, rather as a feature. With NPM and YARN we already have a good enough package management system and their platform can help me evaluate if a package is community supported enough. I'm talking about the stats that I can just check: number of stars, contributors and open/closed issue ratios. If someone understood it better than me please add your thoughts. I also don't see faces here: https://js.foundation/members/ https://js.foundation/members/ Who runs the show?
- omegote 10y agoHow can you find the js fragmentation a feature and not a stinking pile of shit? Seriously.
- qaq 10y agoIt creates jobs :)
- finchisko 10y agoWhat exactly do you mean by js fragmentation? If that, you have power to pick from hundreds of lib/fw and combine them together, then what you call fragmentation is actual real benefit for me. I like to make decisions myself, but if you like the others to take decisions for you, js is probably not for you. The very good example is redux. Redux was once simple state management lib. Take a look at it now https://github.com/xgrommx/awesome-redux https://github.com/xgrommx/awesome-redux. That is real power of js ecosystem.
- acemarke 10y agoObligatory self-plug: the "awesome-redux" list is cluttered and not well organized, and was actually rejected from inclusion in Sindre Sorhus's "awesome-awesome" list because of that ( https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/issues/714#issuecomment-235304428 https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome/issues/714#issuecomm... ). On the flip side, I keep a list of Redux-related addons and utilities at https://github.com/markerikson/redux-ecosystem-links https://github.com/markerikson/redux-ecosystem-links that is actively maintained and has (hopefully) much better categorization, as well as being a much more comprehensive list of all the useful pieces out there in the Redux ecosystem. But yes, as I've said in some recent comments: Dan and Andrew found a sweet spot with Redux's design in terms of approach, concepts, and providing building blocks for others, and that's led to an explosion of useful stuff that people have built for their own use cases.
- hoorayimhelping 10y agoI don't have a ton of experience with the Linux Foundation, but publishing a list of "official" JavaScript libraries to seems like a step in the right direction. One of the largest complaints about the JS ecosystem today is the huge number of choices in libraries available. Maybe this provides a good starting point for a lot of people who feel lost. Or maybe it's just one more library that we all have to understand and make a decision about.
- StreamBright 10y agoI am not sure if anybody can pick the right library for a company other than the technical leadership, though.
- hoorayimhelping 10y agoVery true. Hopefully this provides a good starting point to get the the discussion going, especially for things where there are multiple options. momentjs is a good example - I don't think there's a better library for dealing with time in JavaScript. But Mocha might be contentious - some people love the Jasmine/Mocha/Jest family, other people prefer the Tap/Tape/Ava lineage. Here's to hoping this makes the discussions easier to have.
- k__ 10y agoWell, this will now influence the technical leadership, I guess.
- inimino 10y agoIt also doesn't seem to be what the foundation is trying to do.
- CoryG89 10y agoDoes anyone know if this will affect the licensing of these projects? Linux uses GPL, but I believe most of these projects use MIT.
- ghaff 10y agoThe Linux Foundation already has a wide variety of projects besides Linux which are covered by a number of different licenses depending upon the project. https://www.linuxfoundation.org/projects https://www.linuxfoundation.org/projects
- k__ 10y agoAlso, they say "open web" not "free web" so we're probably save.
- pluma 10y agoProbably not much. The Node Foundation is also a Linux Foundation project and they continue using permissive licenses. Also the JS Foundation already announced that they're adopting the Apache 2.0 license as the default license but that existing projects will keep their MIT/etc licenses. Their open source licensing policy is hidden in the "IP Policy" PDF linked in the footer: https://js.foundation/pdf/ip-policy.pdf https://js.foundation/pdf/ip-policy.pdf Quote: > The technical governing body of each Project is free to choose, [..] the Apache License, Version 2.0 [..]. If an alternative inbound or outbound license is required [..], the Board of Directors of the JS Foundation (the “Board”) may approve the use of an alternative license for inbound or outbound contributions on an exception basis.
- opendomain 10y agoA few years ago, some high profile organizations (W3C, Adobe, Facebook, Google, Hp, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Nokia, Opera) came together to try to help standardize the web platform [1](Javascript, CSS, HTML). That was a HUGE failure - because it was driven by business rather than developers. How will the "Javascript foundation" do better? [1] http://webplatform.com http://webplatform.com
- pluma 10y agoI don't see how WebPlatform was about standardizing. The standards bodies already exist: W3C (with its various WGs), WHAT WG, TC39. The main goal of WebPlatform was to provide a consistent documentation for all standard web technologies -- which largely relied on volunteer work and competed with existing solutions like the Mozilla Developer Network (despite Mozilla supporting the project). I don't see the JS Foundation being even remotely related to this. The JS Foundation is pretty much just a small Apache Foundation for JS projects. And it's not new: it's mostly a rebranding of the jQuery Foundation which has existed for years. It's also decidedly not the "JavaScript Foundation". They don't have the trademark for JavaScript (I think technically Oracle still holds the JavaScript trademark with Mozilla having an unrestricted license to use it). It isn't affiliated with TC39 or any standards body and it doesn't steer the development of the language. IMO the name is unfortunate unless they extend the scope beyond "we support a couple of open source JS projects".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- fenomas 10y agoUh. That's a documentation site - basically a wiki. It didn't exactly catch fire, but it wasn't trying to standardize anything and it didn't fail to do so.
- pags 10y agoDevelopers can't be trusted to make good decisions about the tools they use either.
- 10y ago
- revelation 10y agoWow can you say "scope creep"
- pluma 10y agoWhy? The Linux Foundation is not specific to Linux and already includes the Node Foundation which maintains Node.js. The JS Foundation is just the rebranded jQuery Foundation which already included projects not related to jQuery (e.g. Dojo or Grunt). Neither foundation has changed its scope with this announcement.
- thrillgore 10y agoAs confusing as this appears (are they going to handle new ECMAScript specifications? I am so confused), I am glad that they're supporting Moment.js. It has become one of my default libs, like jQuery, when working on a new project.
- pluma 10y agoThe JS Foundation is just the rebranded jQuery Foundation. Despite its name the jQuery Foundation already had a much broader scope than just jQuery (e.g. also Dojo). The JS Foundation is not related to TC39, the organization in charge of new ECMAScript editions. I guess they might sponsor a TC39 member eventually and engage in JS advocacy beyond merely supporting JS open source projects -- similar to what the PSF and its affiliates do for Python.
- davidgerard 10y ago"founding members include Bocoup, IBM, Ripple, Samsung, Sauce Labs, Sense Tecnic Systems, SitePen, StackPath, University of Westminster and WebsiteSetup." There's a name missing there I would have expected to see. Starts with M. Mo... mo ... something.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- MrZongle2 10y agoMomCorp?
- MrZongle2 10y agoA dearth of Futurama fans here, I see.
- cwyers 10y agoThat's a really odd list of founding members, period. And yeah, managing to do this without having ONE of: * Mozilla * Google * Microsoft * Apple * Adobe * Facebook * eBay Is just... weird. But they have IBM and Samsung.
- opendomain 10y ago* Mozilla * Google * Microsoft * Adobe *Facebook DID work together to try to help standardize the web platform [1] a few years ago. Unfortunately, it failed, mostly because of politics. [1] http://WebPlatform.Com http://WebPlatform.Com
- minitech 10y agoIt looked like documentation and had no clear benefit over MDN. If it wasn’t just documentation, a terrible job was done in communicating that.
- mcs_ 10y agoI'm OK with foundations or even companies that want to attract folk with opensource. Will see in 3 or 5 years the results but looking at recent Facebook activity this strategy works fine.
- ysavir 10y agoI thought this was interesting at first. An effort to push the JS environment towards standardization is a much needed initiative. Then I saw the "initial projects" list. "Appium, contributed by Sauce Labs, is an open source Node.js server..." "Interledger.js, contributed by Ripple, enables instant payments and micropayments in any currency..." "JerryScript, contributed by Samsung, is a lightweight, fully-featured JavaScript engine for Internet of Things..." "Node-RED, contributed by IBM, is a flow-based programming environment built on Node.js..." This made it very clear that the founding members of the "JS Foundation" are not interested in developing and promoting the best open source tools, those tools which are most deserving of broad adaption. To them, this is a way to promote their own tools. They aren't doing this for the good of the of JS ecosystem, they are doing it to push their own brands on developers.
- spraak 10y agoThough nice to see moment and webpack
- todd3834 10y agoAnd mocha
- simplify 10y agomoment.js is a monolithic beast. I would love to see date-fns instead https://github.com/date-fns/date-fns https://github.com/date-fns/date-fns
- Pigo 10y agoNice, ask and ye shall receive. I'm going to have to check this out. There's so much to moment though, is it missing any key features of moment?
- kossnocorp 10y agoHi, the date-fns creator here. We don't have extended time zone support (IANA) and have much fewer translations. But all of that is in progress. Regarding date-manipulations date-fns combines all of the Moment functions and even more (that we found in other libraries; ~150 in total). Check it out: https://github.com/date-fns/date-fns https://github.com/date-fns/date-fns
- Semiapies 10y agoWe're uniting the community by...declaring that we're uniting the community!
- mixonic 10y agoExpanding the jQuery foundation in this way is an exciting change, and one I'm interested to follow and learn from. Ember.js for example has taken some tips from how jQuery grew and managed itself, however we've also avoided what we think were some missteps. I hope the organizers of JSF can share what works and doesn't with the wider community. If they want to solve fragmentation in JavaScript projects, no one organization will do that. The need to share their ideas where they work well. I asked a few questions on Twitter yesterday to this end, and if there is a JSF member around I would really appreciate some thoughts: * What does the "mentorship program" look like? It is mentioned several times but not with much detail. (https://twitter.com/mixonic/status/788046983437037568 https://twitter.com/mixonic/status/788046983437037568) * Can provide context re: "Today the JS Foundation touts a new open, technical governance structure"? What are the changes, and what led to them? https://twitter.com/mixonic/status/788038708364587008 https://twitter.com/mixonic/status/788038708364587008 * What are the motivations for moving to Apache 2.0 as a default license? I expect something about IBM and the patent clause. Does adopting this license attract more corporate participation? Thank you!
- Dowwie 10y agoShocking how the javascript community has done just fine before this group of well funded enterprises organized and nominated itself as leader of that community. This is an attempted capture of a major open source community by commercial interests.
- Pigo 10y agoIf that is the case, I say good luck to them. They might as well try to hold on to a handful of sand.
- ggregoire 10y agoNot sure why this announce is so upvoted (maybe because the title is full of buzzwords?). If we look at this announce: * the jQuery foundation (jQuery + jQuery UI) becomes the JS foundation (jQuery + jQuery UI + IBM + Samsung + unknown companies) * the list of founding members is awkward. IBM to unite the JavaScript community? IBM is the company who creates things like JSONx [1]. These founders have done nothing for the web, for JavaScript or for the open source community. Where are the main actors like Facebook, Google, Microsoft or Netflix? This new partnership is an attempt to gain visibility by companies that are non-existent in the JavaScript community. To be clear: the JS foundation will not make the JavaScript ecosystem finally less fragmented and more standardized (the common complaints on Hacker News). [1] https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SS9H2Y_7.5.0/com.ibm.dp.doc/json_jsonxconversionexample.html https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SS9H2Y_7.5.0/com...
- na85 10y ago>Where are the main actors like Facebook, Google, Microsoft or Netflix? I'd argue that the main actors (and others) have driven the web backwards, not forwards. They've done this by the push towards capturing consumers in a walled garden, the rejection of open standards, the embrace of DRM, the selling of user private data for profit, etc. You listed companies I'd invite to sit on the board of some kind of User Tracking Foundation, but not anything to do with open web development.
- shadowfox 10y ago> I'd argue that the main actors (and others) have driven the web backwards, not forwards. They've done this by the push towards capturing consumers in a walled garden, the rejection of open standards, the embrace of DRM, the selling of user private data for profit, etc That could well be. I just don't quite see what that has to do with moving Javascript forward.
- wodencafe 10y agoIt doesn't, it's about Javascript being driven backwards by big $.
- jabinaro 10y agoAnyone use JerryScript? I found it to be incomplete.
- sebringj 10y agoNPM actually did that.
- dylanks2 10y agoHere's my take on all of this: https://www.sitepen.com/blog/2016/10/17/announcing-the-js-foundation/ https://www.sitepen.com/blog/2016/10/17/announcing-the-js-fo... The feedback is interesting, but I think it helps to understand more of the history to get that most of the negative feedback here is overreaction. Some thoughts: * No, the foundation isn't trying to dominate or tell people what to do. It's trying to support open source projects through their lifecycle. Running a project can be a rather lonely and frustrating experience at times, but can also be very rewarding * Open source foundations provide legal protection to individuals and corporations that contribute and use open source software, and help ensure that one company or person doesn't turn evil and try to pull the carpet out from under the community (which has happened many times in the history of OSS) * Regarding standardization, the foundation has members on TC39, W3C TAG, etc. Helping with standards is time consuming (and something I personally don't want to spend any time on), but it does help to gather ideas and have a way to contribute in a smaller way to the process * As a foundation, we don't require any project to merge or conform with another. We have 3 testing tools (Intern, Mocha, and QUnit) which all have different philosophical approaches. But there are certainly things we could collaborate on, inside or outside the foundation. * The foundation is not a place for projects to go to die. For example, many think of Dojo 1.x as old (because it's been under active use and development since 2004), but if you look at the work being done on Dojo 2 ( http://github.com/dojo/meta http://github.com/dojo/meta ), you'll see that it's on its way to reinventing itself as a modern TypeScript based approach to building web apps. * Over the years we've worked with many large companies, and it's important to remember that companies are made of individuals. These companies have behaved on the OSS front in a very helpful manner (and I'm a huge skeptic in general). IBM has contributed as much over the years to JS OSS as anyone out there. The amount of help they provided in a11y and i18n is second to none, and they've helped Dojo, jQuery, PhoneGap/Cordova and others in significant ways. * The list of founding members is smaller than we would have liked, but many times, you need to put something out there before people will join (it's more difficult to convince someone to sponsor something not yet announced than something fully baked). And just because you haven't heard of a company doesn't mean they don't do interesting and important things. The goal was not to just get a bunch of large companies to push their logos, but to get a group of people that care about the open web involved. Overall it seems like the community loves to hate on things out of FUD (nothing new), but really we're just a group of people that create OSS that solves problems we have as developers. Really we just want to help, and a foundation is just one way to encourage collaboration.