4 ms·

Not 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 + jQuer

Not 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 ago
    It doesn't, it's about Javascript being driven backwards by big $.
    - ben_jones 10y ago
      That just opens a pedantic conversation on what "forwards" is, which is mostly relative. A PM will think "forward" is faster development, an engineer might view "forward" as better best practices and better mean software quality. "Forwards" to Facebook is more ad impressions. The real answer is probably a combination of all the above, which qualifies for GP's comment.

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 ago
  It doesn't, it's about Javascript being driven backwards by big $.
  - ben_jones 10y ago
    That just opens a pedantic conversation on what "forwards" is, which is mostly relative. A PM will think "forward" is faster development, an engineer might view "forward" as better best practices and better mean software quality. "Forwards" to Facebook is more ad impressions. The real answer is probably a combination of all the above, which qualifies for GP's comment.