6 ms·

It's not a "JavaScript library" it's an entire toolchain. In the same way that `git` generated billions of dollars worth of value in the form of companies and p

by amasad 5y ago

It's not a "JavaScript library" it's an entire toolchain. In the same way that `git` generated billions of dollars worth of value in the form of companies and productivity, Rome will do the same. Possibly even bigger.

ehutch79 5y ago
git doesn't make linus torvalds money though. People used git because it was mandated for linux kernel work.
- jakeva 5y ago
  To your second point, I remember when git was announced. I remember it was such a breath of conceptual fresh air over what I had been using (svn, mercurial) for me. I use it because it makes a lot more sense to me and how I work, and I've never worked on the linux kernel.
  - nytgop77 5y ago
    never used it, but afaik mercurial is basically git's doppelgannger - functionally they are identical. Am I wrong here?
    - arthurcolle 5y ago
      No, doppelganger seems like a pretty incorrect term to choose here. http://www.rockstarprogrammer.org/post/2008/apr/06/differences-between-mercurial-and-git/ http://www.rockstarprogrammer.org/post/2008/apr/06/differenc...
blocked_again 5y ago
I have no doubt that Rome will massively increase the producitvity of thousands of companies and developers. But the hard thing in open source is how will you capture some portion of that value. The vast majority of libraries, toolchains and other open source projects out there which has massively increased the developer producitivty are underfunded let alone generate millions of dollars in sales. Rome not only has to find a sustainable way for funding the project as well as figure out a way to 100x the returns of VCs? How is Rome planning to do that?
- sbarre 5y ago
  > How is Rome planning to do that? Clearly they have a vision that investors thought was compelling enough to buy into. Perhaps be patient and see what they announce in the future? This is their day one (zero?).. If there was an easy answer here, someone else would have already done it. edit: they (sort of) answer in another thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27039330 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27039330
  - blocked_again 5y ago
    Yeah. I geuinely hope they work it out. And hopefully more open source projects can follow their playbook.
- austincheney 5y ago
  > I have no doubt that Rome will massively increase the producitvity of thousands of companies and developers I would like to see that measured. My suspicion is that many developers are already too reliant on tooling and that reliance harms productivity rather than improves it. Bundling those tooling concerns eliminates some operational costs associated with a plurality of tools but increases dependency upon the tool. This problem is not a technical problem (as in how do I solve a problem), but a cultural problem (as in what is the proper way to solve a problem). It comes down to the difference between a product focus (what do we ship) versus an operational focus (what do we work on).
  - Oddskar 5y ago
    I think you're being very selective with what you call "tooling" here. I understand where it's coming from though, and I agree that in some circumstances people are adhering too much to what might be perceived as "standards" instead of building or using something more fit to the task. On the contrary I would also say that I see a lot of developers not being reliant enough on tooling. A simple example is getting very acquainted with the debugger in your language of choice. It's very common to sprinkle logs everywhere instead of properly learning how to step through code.
legostormtroopr 5y ago
Who is getting rich off "git"? GitHub, yeah absolutely, but git makes no money because noone pays for git. Likewise, noone pays for command line package managers (in fact I doubt anyone pays for a command-line tool at all). So its ok to say it generates value, but if you can't caputre that value its not a sound business model.

by amasad 5y ago

ehutch79 5y ago

git doesn't make linus torvalds money though. People used git because it was mandated for linux kernel work.

jakeva 5y ago
To your second point, I remember when git was announced. I remember it was such a breath of conceptual fresh air over what I had been using (svn, mercurial) for me. I use it because it makes a lot more sense to me and how I work, and I've never worked on the linux kernel.
- nytgop77 5y ago
  never used it, but afaik mercurial is basically git's doppelgannger - functionally they are identical. Am I wrong here?
  - arthurcolle 5y ago
    No, doppelganger seems like a pretty incorrect term to choose here. http://www.rockstarprogrammer.org/post/2008/apr/06/differences-between-mercurial-and-git/ http://www.rockstarprogrammer.org/post/2008/apr/06/differenc...

blocked_again 5y ago

I have no doubt that Rome will massively increase the producitvity of thousands of companies and developers. But the hard thing in open source is how will you capture some portion of that value. The vast majority of libraries, toolchains and other open source projects out there which has massively increased the developer producitivty are underfunded let alone generate millions of dollars in sales. Rome not only has to find a sustainable way for funding the project as well as figure out a way to 100x the returns of VCs? How is Rome planning to do that?

sbarre 5y ago
> How is Rome planning to do that? Clearly they have a vision that investors thought was compelling enough to buy into. Perhaps be patient and see what they announce in the future? This is their day one (zero?).. If there was an easy answer here, someone else would have already done it. edit: they (sort of) answer in another thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27039330 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27039330
- blocked_again 5y ago
  Yeah. I geuinely hope they work it out. And hopefully more open source projects can follow their playbook.
austincheney 5y ago
> I have no doubt that Rome will massively increase the producitvity of thousands of companies and developers I would like to see that measured. My suspicion is that many developers are already too reliant on tooling and that reliance harms productivity rather than improves it. Bundling those tooling concerns eliminates some operational costs associated with a plurality of tools but increases dependency upon the tool. This problem is not a technical problem (as in how do I solve a problem), but a cultural problem (as in what is the proper way to solve a problem). It comes down to the difference between a product focus (what do we ship) versus an operational focus (what do we work on).
- Oddskar 5y ago
  I think you're being very selective with what you call "tooling" here. I understand where it's coming from though, and I agree that in some circumstances people are adhering too much to what might be perceived as "standards" instead of building or using something more fit to the task. On the contrary I would also say that I see a lot of developers not being reliant enough on tooling. A simple example is getting very acquainted with the debugger in your language of choice. It's very common to sprinkle logs everywhere instead of properly learning how to step through code.

legostormtroopr 5y ago

Who is getting rich off "git"? GitHub, yeah absolutely, but git makes no money because noone pays for git. Likewise, noone pays for command line package managers (in fact I doubt anyone pays for a command-line tool at all). So its ok to say it generates value, but if you can't caputre that value its not a sound business model.