5 ms·
It's different but if IO/Node diverge too far, it could break packages.
by lbotos 12y ago
It's different but if IO/Node diverge too far, it could break packages.
- debacle 12y agoThey're both MIT and likely to stay MIT. They don't have to diverge at all unless Joylent goes open/closed. Edit: Downvoters, have I said something that is untrue?
- emergentcypher 12y agoBut isn't the point of the split that they have differing opinions on how to do things? Hence, they -will- diverge according to those differences in opinion. Not to mention, keeping them consistent means someone has to take code added to one, and port it into the other. That must take some work, and I can see the laziness of people coming through.
- bsimpson 12y agoThe whole debate is over uptake speed. If async functions and lambda arrows land in IO and I use them in my package, people on node v10 aren't going to be able to use it. If Joyent accepts new features as quickly as IO, there's no point in the fork. Essentially, there's bound to be some level of fragmentation.
- debacle 12y agoI don't really see one implementation being a superset of another as fragmentation - IO will just be better, and Node will slowly die.
- jessaustin 12y agoWhat this scenario means is that there should be a way for a module to depend on polyfill modules, only for particular engines. So on IO the dependency would not be in effect, while on e.g. node v0.10 it would. I don't think this is possible now, but you could just publish two modules.
- tracker1 12y agoThat's already happening... co was released over a year ago, and still requires the dev version of node and the --harmony flag... this is something that should be in 0.12 which should have been released by now. Any modules relying on generators already require gnode or > 0.10 ... so uptake speed is very relevant and already an issue. It's about how slow things have moved since 0.10 as much as anything else.