3 ms·
> - The idea that companies would pay for a JS library that is patching browser support is wild. Companies make more money by having their websites work in old
by cyral 4y ago
> - The idea that companies would pay for a JS library that is patching browser support is wild.
Companies make more money by having their websites work in older browsers. If it wasn't for core-js, they would be paying developer time to write polyfills or compile and maintain them from various other single polyfill packages. Surely if they are willing to pay developers to do this in return for increased profits they would also be willing to pay someone else to do it, just as businesses outsource all kinds of tasks.
- ricardobeat 4y agoYes, they would be paying for developers' time, and most likely never notice the difference. The value added doesn't automatically translate into a viable model where that money ends up in the library author's hands. Companies sponsor projects for exposure, street cred, or pay for commercial features and support. They will not hand out the realized savings out of goodwill.
- white_dragon88 4y agoPolyfills aren’t some dark art, a 2nd year comp sci student could write them quickly as needed.
- yunohn 4y agoYour attitude/POV is common, and yet no one has built a comparable competitor to core-js? Maybe you are wrong then, and could show some empathy.
- querulous 4y agoit works fine and there's someone happy to do it for free. why would anyone try to compete with it?
- white_dragon88 4y ago[dead]
- sgammon 4y ago99% of these projects include core-js by accident through Babel...
- biorach 4y agodunning kreuger strikes again
- cyral 4y agoThat's what I thought until I read the entire post and got to the part about duplicate polyfills due to the whole dependency mess. At that point I would give up on maintaining such a project.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]