7 ms·

Ben Noordhuis, the center of the Node.js pronoun scandal [1] and one of the founders of Strongloop, has activity in IO.js more recent than his activity in Node.

Ben Noordhuis, the center of the Node.js pronoun scandal [1] and one of the founders of Strongloop, has activity in IO.js more recent than his activity in Node.js. I can't help but wonder how much of this is a power struggle between Strongloop and Joyent. https://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun https://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun

dmpk2k 12y ago
Reminds me of the Docker/Rocket situation, at least in the monetary sense. Node.js became big, money went to heads, and here we are.
- uptownJimmy 12y ago
  What part of "it has to do with developers getting really frustrated at the stalled pace of development on the Joyent branch" is so hard to understand? Cuz this gets incessantly repeated in a calm, rational manner by people involved with the branch.
- tracker1 12y ago
  I don't feel that's the case at all... relative to development of every stable release of Node, 0.10 is getting very long in the tooth, and 0.11 is pretty stagnant as well. If only from the perspective of v8 supported features alone. At this point we really should be working on 0.13 (towards 1.0) which should have the --harmony features by default. It's bad enough that I have to use browserify to get working features in the browsers... I shouldn't have to do that for a leading edge server-side JS platform in the development version. Don't get me wrong, still love node, and JS is very effective, just the same, I'd rather not have to require in libraries that should be baked into the engine at this point... or writing shims to make for an easier transition. co/koa are over a year old now... developed against features that still aren't in the supported release... prior to 0.10, v8 had been kept very close to the edge... it's now over a year behind.
petercooper 12y ago
Strongloop has this statement: http://strongloop.com/strongblog/position-on-io-js/ http://strongloop.com/strongblog/position-on-io-js/
SloopJon 12y ago
Off topic, I guess, but color me unimpressed by the guy claiming he would fire someone for rejecting a pull request that does nothing but advance a political agenda.
- buckbova 12y ago
  Yeah, talk about an over the top reaction. I'd probably reject this too from a do-gooder searching github for pronouns to change. "Get another hobby. Rejected."
  - oddevan 12y ago
    Out of curiosity, what's the harm in accepting the pull request after someone's already done the work? Edit: I get not wanting unsolicited input from "do-gooders," but if someone on the project made such a change, would you still reject it?
    - buckbova 12y ago
      If I were in this position, I would accept it from a frequent contributor to the project. I don't like the idea of someone poking around to make one-word non-functional changes.
      - kordless 12y ago
        > one-word non-functional changes What about typos in docs? Contextually it seems reasonable to accept changes of a single word which may cause confusion on operational grounds. Is a gendered word really different? Operationally, it would appear differentiating between pronouns might be required in documentation if some readers of the docs are offended by the masculine use. One could certainly argue that with excessive profanity. I would note here that I probably wouldn't care if someone put 'she' in a document to represent a user entity, but that's a simply an observation of my own biases, not a rational to ignore another's.
        12y ago
drderidder 12y ago
It isn't that. Really it's Fedor and Mikeal pushing it a lot, not the strongloop guys. The other core devs are behind it, too, except a couple from Joyent. It really has nothing to do with corporate power struggles (that's more what Joyent's advisory board is about, frankly)... it has to do with developers getting really frustrated at the stalled pace of development on the Joyent branch. The real objective is to get rapid release cycles, pull in updates on V8, better separation of core modules, and new features for better numerical computing, etc. Oh, and new logo proposals are going wild at the moment.
- craigyk 12y ago
  New features for numerical computing? I am intrigued... for me that essentially means operator overloading, including []. I think that would open the door for implementing a numpy like module for Node. Is that the plan?
  - drderidder 12y ago
    No, operator overloading isn't in the language spec, with reason. I think numerical computing libs like LAPACK, if ported to JS, will probably require a wrapper around 64-bit floats (a la BigDecimal) and math operators that are really function calls. The plan has been to look into transpiling from fortran to asm.js although my personal feeling is it would be better just to use the C API and compile a module that statically links in the necessary libs. They'll figure it out...

dmpk2k 12y ago

Reminds me of the Docker/Rocket situation, at least in the monetary sense. Node.js became big, money went to heads, and here we are.

uptownJimmy 12y ago
What part of "it has to do with developers getting really frustrated at the stalled pace of development on the Joyent branch" is so hard to understand? Cuz this gets incessantly repeated in a calm, rational manner by people involved with the branch.
tracker1 12y ago
I don't feel that's the case at all... relative to development of every stable release of Node, 0.10 is getting very long in the tooth, and 0.11 is pretty stagnant as well. If only from the perspective of v8 supported features alone. At this point we really should be working on 0.13 (towards 1.0) which should have the --harmony features by default. It's bad enough that I have to use browserify to get working features in the browsers... I shouldn't have to do that for a leading edge server-side JS platform in the development version. Don't get me wrong, still love node, and JS is very effective, just the same, I'd rather not have to require in libraries that should be baked into the engine at this point... or writing shims to make for an easier transition. co/koa are over a year old now... developed against features that still aren't in the supported release... prior to 0.10, v8 had been kept very close to the edge... it's now over a year behind.

petercooper 12y ago

Strongloop has this statement: http://strongloop.com/strongblog/position-on-io-js/ http://strongloop.com/strongblog/position-on-io-js/

SloopJon 12y ago

Off topic, I guess, but color me unimpressed by the guy claiming he would fire someone for rejecting a pull request that does nothing but advance a political agenda.

buckbova 12y ago
Yeah, talk about an over the top reaction. I'd probably reject this too from a do-gooder searching github for pronouns to change. "Get another hobby. Rejected."
- oddevan 12y ago
  Out of curiosity, what's the harm in accepting the pull request after someone's already done the work? Edit: I get not wanting unsolicited input from "do-gooders," but if someone on the project made such a change, would you still reject it?
  - buckbova 12y ago
    If I were in this position, I would accept it from a frequent contributor to the project. I don't like the idea of someone poking around to make one-word non-functional changes.
    - kordless 12y ago
      > one-word non-functional changes What about typos in docs? Contextually it seems reasonable to accept changes of a single word which may cause confusion on operational grounds. Is a gendered word really different? Operationally, it would appear differentiating between pronouns might be required in documentation if some readers of the docs are offended by the masculine use. One could certainly argue that with excessive profanity. I would note here that I probably wouldn't care if someone put 'she' in a document to represent a user entity, but that's a simply an observation of my own biases, not a rational to ignore another's.
      - 12y ago

drderidder 12y ago

It isn't that. Really it's Fedor and Mikeal pushing it a lot, not the strongloop guys. The other core devs are behind it, too, except a couple from Joyent. It really has nothing to do with corporate power struggles (that's more what Joyent's advisory board is about, frankly)... it has to do with developers getting really frustrated at the stalled pace of development on the Joyent branch. The real objective is to get rapid release cycles, pull in updates on V8, better separation of core modules, and new features for better numerical computing, etc. Oh, and new logo proposals are going wild at the moment.

craigyk 12y ago
New features for numerical computing? I am intrigued... for me that essentially means operator overloading, including []. I think that would open the door for implementing a numpy like module for Node. Is that the plan?
- drderidder 12y ago
  No, operator overloading isn't in the language spec, with reason. I think numerical computing libs like LAPACK, if ported to JS, will probably require a wrapper around 64-bit floats (a la BigDecimal) and math operators that are really function calls. The plan has been to look into transpiling from fortran to asm.js although my personal feeling is it would be better just to use the C API and compile a module that statically links in the necessary libs. They'll figure it out...