8 ms·

Just like all statistics, these should be taken with a grain of salt, but I think Github's "pulse" breakdowns between Iojs and Node are pretty sobering. Iojs:

Just like all statistics, these should be taken with a grain of salt, but I think Github's "pulse" breakdowns between Iojs and Node are pretty sobering. Iojs: 49 authors have pushed 168 commits to master and 572 commits to all branches. On master, 8,474 files have changed and there have been 1,524,012 additions and 708,276 deletions. Node: 30 authors have pushed 5 commits to master and 95 commits to all branches. On master, 10 files have changed and there have been 294 additions and 36 deletions. That's for the last month.

NhanH 11y ago
Did I read the number wrong, or is that an absurd amount of changes (note: I haven't look at the commit myself, as I have no idea how to get all the stats from github interface)? That's about 800000 additional lines of code for 49 developers in a months, or ~16000 LOC for each developer. Unless additions and deletions are counted on a different unit, can anyone knowledgeable explain to me how the numbers are reasonable at all?
- frutiger 11y ago
  Unless you ask it, git considers file moves to be a complete deletion of the file along with the addition of the file. A good way to tell git to detect renames is to use the similarity flags: `git diff -M60% --shortstat` will consider files 60% similar to be renames.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- lugg 11y ago
  Most of it is junk find and replace stuff / formatting docs etc. [1] Pulse [2] is just a neat github feature that gives you an overview of a project. LOC will always be a shitty metric for anything. [1] https://github.com/iojs/io.js/commit/56e4255382ad4d2426e034624b41bbe97d18bca0 https://github.com/iojs/io.js/commit/56e4255382ad4d2426e0346... [2] https://github.com/iojs/io.js/pulse https://github.com/iojs/io.js/pulse
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- brandonb927 11y ago
  Joyent used to have the license on the top of virtually EVERY file in the repo for node. Someone removed all but one (6430 deletions) https://github.com/iojs/io.js/pull/311/files https://github.com/iojs/io.js/pull/311/files I can imagine this makes up for a portion of it.
  - tiles 11y ago
    Not just someone, but @izs (former maintainer, creator and current co-founder of NPM)
  - riffraff 11y ago
    I remember this was a common thing in free/open source projects some time ago[0]. At some point people started to believe that this was not necessary. I am not sure of the legal implications, of either choice, just wanted to point out that the joyent people probably were not crazy :) [0] e.g. a random file from ISC bind https://source.isc.org/git/?p=bind9.git;a=blob;f=bin/rndc/rndc.c;h=150a4ea0882743fc50d33d42c180f94d7e1d4915;hb=ecaed3593cd14f2491d1bd81fc98cb940e12f8bb https://source.isc.org/git/?p=bind9.git;a=blob;f=bin/rndc/rn...
    - vidarh 11y ago
      In every Berne Convention signatory country (which is pretty much any country that will matter to most people), published works are required by the convention to be copyrighted by default, whether or not there is a copyright notice, and the lack of a license means you have to assume you have none unless something else tells you differently. That basically makes embedding the license text pointless. It certainly was common, though, which is/was probably because the US did not join until 1989, and prior to that US copyright law required a mandatory copyright notice, so a lot of people will have at least worked on projects old enough for this policy to have mattered.
      - greggman 11y ago
        Really? I've been putting the license in every file in my project because it's JavaScript and people drive by a website, see "foo.js" and have no idea where it came from or what license it's under. With the license in the file it's immediately clear.
Osiris 11y ago
It reminds me of Internet Explorer. Once it got "good enough", development slowed to a trickle until someone finally got fed up with it and started a new browser with a very rapid release cycle that continues today. Node.js 0.10.0 was released on March 11, 2013. 0.12.0 was released almost 2 years later on Feb 6, 2015. By all accounts 0.12 isn't even a major change over 0.10. The io.js team has done more in a few months than Joyent did in 2 years. I, personally, don't care if node.js and io.js ever merge. One is clearly a superior product with a superior open source governance model.
- teamhappy 11y ago
  > The io.js team has done more in a few months than Joyent did in 2 years. This seems a bit one-sided. What Joyent has been doing is called "maintaining production software." That's something I've been missing in the web world lately. It's surprisingly hard to find high quality libraries that don't change all the time (that is, break all the time). Libraries like jQuery, normalize.css, and Lodash are the exception here. They're some of the few libraries that I'm comfortable guessing will look pretty much the same they do now a year from now. That is not to say that I don't want to write my gulpfiles in ES6 as much as everybody else, but you have to understand that this whole forking thing scares off people who are looking for a platform they can invest significant time and money into (that is, write more than a million lines of code for).
  - towelguy 11y ago
    Why can't they have a development branch while still keeping their LTS branch?
    - jaredmcateer 11y ago
      Have they figured out how they are doing LTS yet? Last I saw there still wasn't agreement.
- wnevets 11y ago
  General consensus on hacker news seems to be angularjs making breaking changes bad, io.js making breaking changes good.
_pmf_ 11y ago
So, node.js is more stable and therefore more suitable for production?
- jorangreef 11y ago
  We have been using node.js in production since almost the very beginning. We have since switched to io.js and I would seriously hesitate to use node.js, due to the seismic gap release pattern, which is actually more likely to create issues. Node.js is definitely not "more stable" as Joyent like to claim. io.js has almost all of the core developers from the original node.js, which is now basically just a ghost town. For stability, critical fixes and core developer support go with io.js.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    Not to mention, that breaking your services apart (to some extent) becomes pretty easy to test, and with something like docker/lxc it becomes trivial to test/configure a new service with updates for deployment in isolation from the rest of the system... and tested independently.
anon3_ 11y ago
Why wouldn't node.js have more contributions? It's the official product and backed by a neutral company (Joyent). Just like Sun does to Java, Microsoft does to C#, Google does to Golang. It's beneficial. Joyent is a company of merit that stays out of politics. Integrity trumps popularity, sure it it can ruffle feathers time to time. Why not just enjoy the support and let things coast? Edit: If anyone has proof otherwise, I'd like to see it. Name one time Joyent ever made a mistake in their open source stewardship.
- phpnode 11y ago
  Is this sarcasm? io.js would not exist if joyent hadn't made significant mistakes, e.g. failing to ship a new release for years, also this political point scoring alienated a lot of people - https://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun https://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun
  - anon3_ 11y ago
    I use node.js daily, I've never had a problem. Nor have I heard any. Failing to ship a new release, how is that Joyent's fault? It's core developers who are to blame. I don't understand the point of the link you sent me. How would a gender neutral alienate people? The person they were talking about here wasn't an employee. But why would Joyent consider rejecting a PR for gender pronouns as a fireable offense? Probably a website defacement / practical joke. Edit: FYI - I don't follow this. I don't understand why a fork even exists.
    - Cthulhu_ 11y ago
      > But why would Joyent consider rejecting a PR for gender pronouns as a fireable offense? Because community pressure, basically. When there's an angry mob outside about to burn your company down, do you just give them who they want or let your company burn and have everyone else fired too?
      - phpnode 11y ago
        It actually had nothing to do with the pronouns or the angry mob, and everything to do with forcing a StrongLoop employee out.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

NhanH 11y ago

Did I read the number wrong, or is that an absurd amount of changes (note: I haven't look at the commit myself, as I have no idea how to get all the stats from github interface)? That's about 800000 additional lines of code for 49 developers in a months, or ~16000 LOC for each developer. Unless additions and deletions are counted on a different unit, can anyone knowledgeable explain to me how the numbers are reasonable at all?

frutiger 11y ago
Unless you ask it, git considers file moves to be a complete deletion of the file along with the addition of the file. A good way to tell git to detect renames is to use the similarity flags: `git diff -M60% --shortstat` will consider files 60% similar to be renames.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
lugg 11y ago
Most of it is junk find and replace stuff / formatting docs etc. [1] Pulse [2] is just a neat github feature that gives you an overview of a project. LOC will always be a shitty metric for anything. [1] https://github.com/iojs/io.js/commit/56e4255382ad4d2426e034624b41bbe97d18bca0 https://github.com/iojs/io.js/commit/56e4255382ad4d2426e0346... [2] https://github.com/iojs/io.js/pulse https://github.com/iojs/io.js/pulse
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
brandonb927 11y ago
Joyent used to have the license on the top of virtually EVERY file in the repo for node. Someone removed all but one (6430 deletions) https://github.com/iojs/io.js/pull/311/files https://github.com/iojs/io.js/pull/311/files I can imagine this makes up for a portion of it.
- tiles 11y ago
  Not just someone, but @izs (former maintainer, creator and current co-founder of NPM)
- riffraff 11y ago
  I remember this was a common thing in free/open source projects some time ago[0]. At some point people started to believe that this was not necessary. I am not sure of the legal implications, of either choice, just wanted to point out that the joyent people probably were not crazy :) [0] e.g. a random file from ISC bind https://source.isc.org/git/?p=bind9.git;a=blob;f=bin/rndc/rndc.c;h=150a4ea0882743fc50d33d42c180f94d7e1d4915;hb=ecaed3593cd14f2491d1bd81fc98cb940e12f8bb https://source.isc.org/git/?p=bind9.git;a=blob;f=bin/rndc/rn...
  - vidarh 11y ago
    In every Berne Convention signatory country (which is pretty much any country that will matter to most people), published works are required by the convention to be copyrighted by default, whether or not there is a copyright notice, and the lack of a license means you have to assume you have none unless something else tells you differently. That basically makes embedding the license text pointless. It certainly was common, though, which is/was probably because the US did not join until 1989, and prior to that US copyright law required a mandatory copyright notice, so a lot of people will have at least worked on projects old enough for this policy to have mattered.
    - greggman 11y ago
      Really? I've been putting the license in every file in my project because it's JavaScript and people drive by a website, see "foo.js" and have no idea where it came from or what license it's under. With the license in the file it's immediately clear.

Osiris 11y ago

It reminds me of Internet Explorer. Once it got "good enough", development slowed to a trickle until someone finally got fed up with it and started a new browser with a very rapid release cycle that continues today. Node.js 0.10.0 was released on March 11, 2013. 0.12.0 was released almost 2 years later on Feb 6, 2015. By all accounts 0.12 isn't even a major change over 0.10. The io.js team has done more in a few months than Joyent did in 2 years. I, personally, don't care if node.js and io.js ever merge. One is clearly a superior product with a superior open source governance model.

teamhappy 11y ago
> The io.js team has done more in a few months than Joyent did in 2 years. This seems a bit one-sided. What Joyent has been doing is called "maintaining production software." That's something I've been missing in the web world lately. It's surprisingly hard to find high quality libraries that don't change all the time (that is, break all the time). Libraries like jQuery, normalize.css, and Lodash are the exception here. They're some of the few libraries that I'm comfortable guessing will look pretty much the same they do now a year from now. That is not to say that I don't want to write my gulpfiles in ES6 as much as everybody else, but you have to understand that this whole forking thing scares off people who are looking for a platform they can invest significant time and money into (that is, write more than a million lines of code for).
- towelguy 11y ago
  Why can't they have a development branch while still keeping their LTS branch?
  - jaredmcateer 11y ago
    Have they figured out how they are doing LTS yet? Last I saw there still wasn't agreement.
wnevets 11y ago
General consensus on hacker news seems to be angularjs making breaking changes bad, io.js making breaking changes good.

_pmf_ 11y ago

So, node.js is more stable and therefore more suitable for production?

jorangreef 11y ago
We have been using node.js in production since almost the very beginning. We have since switched to io.js and I would seriously hesitate to use node.js, due to the seismic gap release pattern, which is actually more likely to create issues. Node.js is definitely not "more stable" as Joyent like to claim. io.js has almost all of the core developers from the original node.js, which is now basically just a ghost town. For stability, critical fixes and core developer support go with io.js.
- tracker1 11y ago
  Not to mention, that breaking your services apart (to some extent) becomes pretty easy to test, and with something like docker/lxc it becomes trivial to test/configure a new service with updates for deployment in isolation from the rest of the system... and tested independently.

anon3_ 11y ago

Why wouldn't node.js have more contributions? It's the official product and backed by a neutral company (Joyent). Just like Sun does to Java, Microsoft does to C#, Google does to Golang. It's beneficial. Joyent is a company of merit that stays out of politics. Integrity trumps popularity, sure it it can ruffle feathers time to time. Why not just enjoy the support and let things coast? Edit: If anyone has proof otherwise, I'd like to see it. Name one time Joyent ever made a mistake in their open source stewardship.

phpnode 11y ago
Is this sarcasm? io.js would not exist if joyent hadn't made significant mistakes, e.g. failing to ship a new release for years, also this political point scoring alienated a lot of people - https://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun https://www.joyent.com/blog/the-power-of-a-pronoun
- anon3_ 11y ago
  I use node.js daily, I've never had a problem. Nor have I heard any. Failing to ship a new release, how is that Joyent's fault? It's core developers who are to blame. I don't understand the point of the link you sent me. How would a gender neutral alienate people? The person they were talking about here wasn't an employee. But why would Joyent consider rejecting a PR for gender pronouns as a fireable offense? Probably a website defacement / practical joke. Edit: FYI - I don't follow this. I don't understand why a fork even exists.
  - Cthulhu_ 11y ago
    > But why would Joyent consider rejecting a PR for gender pronouns as a fireable offense? Because community pressure, basically. When there's an angry mob outside about to burn your company down, do you just give them who they want or let your company burn and have everyone else fired too?
    - phpnode 11y ago
      It actually had nothing to do with the pronouns or the angry mob, and everything to do with forcing a StrongLoop employee out.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]