creationix

7 ms·

1. 61.▲
   by creationix 12y ago

   If anyone is wanting a node.js like experience with duktape, I've been working on libuv bindings for duktape. https://github.com/creationix/dukluv
2. 62.▲
   by creationix 12y ago

   Thanks for posting here. I hope people like this idea.
3. 63.▲
   by creationix 13y ago

   What do you mean by common.js implementation? The only thing I know of that survived the common.js movement was that node.js adopted it's module file format. That format requires either sync I/O, XHR loading and wrapping or a bu
4. 64.▲
   by creationix 13y ago

   I'm sorry the progress seems to disorganized. I've recently moved to doing work in the main js-git repo to make things more obvious to people. As far as the first fund-raiser, I was able to stretch the money farther than I had an
5. 65.▲
   by creationix 13y ago

   This is the second time they've backed my js-git project. They were the largest backer in the original kickstarter. I asked them back then why they backed my project. The response was that they believe in open source software and li
6. 66.▲
   by creationix 13y ago

   Correct. Also the amount of code generated by emscripten is too much for me. I want js-git to be a light-weight dependency.
7. 67.▲
   by creationix 13y ago

   There are many other ways to store data locally that vary by platform. They range from full filesystem access in node.js to html5 fs apis in modern browsers and chrome apps. Winfs has it's own APIs ported over from C#, Firefox os has
8. 68.▲
   by creationix 13y ago

   There are several failed attempts. Most of them died because they were just side-projects and/or programmed in a monolithic manner and crumbled under their own weight. The two main devs on js-git are myself and Chris Dickinson. I&#x
9. 69.▲
   by creationix 13y ago

   I'm implementing git in JavaScript to bring more independence to developers on more devices. This will enable more apps to have distributed data that works fully offline and doesn't require cloud services to work. One benefit of
10. 70.▲
    JS-Git Needs Your Help(bountysource.com)

    16 points by creationix 13y ago|6 comments
11. 71.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    But that's exactly my point. Where I live in the poor south, most kids have iPhones because they are "free" and their parents can't do the math to realize that the monthly fees make it incredibly expensive. But I have yet to see a single
12. 72.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    I can only judge on what I've seen personally and what I've heard from industry leaders and both line up. Wherever I'm living I go around to schools and groups looking for kids to teach programming to. They all have computers of some sort
13. 73.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    Thanks for the links. You are correct that I probably won't be able to support all git repos because of memory constraints and unless I get special APIs from the browser I won't be able to do git protocol or git over ssh. I do feel pretty
14. 74.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    I will explore this as one of the possibilities. I'm not dead set of reimplementing everything myself. If using an existing JS library and finishing it or compiling an existing C library using emscripten is the best, then I'll do that.. T
15. 75.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    Thanks!
16. 76.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    Not all web apps require constant server interaction to develop. Also you could probably mock a lot of the server interaction as well.
17. 77.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    Like I said, my main use case is mine. I want to develop on my new ChromeBook Pixel (if it ever gets here) without being forced to use an Ubuntu chroot. Packaged apps have much larger size quotas and most my code repos are small anyway. A
18. 78.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    So I can develop offline using nothing more than a browser. I clone a repo from github to my browser when I'm online. Then I'm offline in a bus or on a plane, but I can still work because browsers have file storage now. When I'm done wor
19. 79.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    Exactly the kind of person I'm trying to help!!! Thanks for the support.
20. 80.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    Thanks for the feedback, I've improved the copy on the kickstarter page.
21. 81.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    No, I'm just writing a library in this phase. I'll have a prototype that uses it, but I expect the IDE authors to want to integrate it themselves.
22. 82.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    Thanks Matthew, that's the plan. Also since the target audience is developers, I don't have to support ancient browsers. This isn't a news site for the general public, it's a developer library.
23. 83.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    I want this, I know many people who want this. That's good enough in my book to create it. If enough people believe in the idea enough to fund me, then it's a good idea. I know this is a hard project, that's why I haven't done it yet in m
24. 84.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    The main problem it solves is to allow offline development in sandboxed environments like ChromeBooks and Windows RT devices (or even iPads if you had a BT keyboard).
25. 85.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    The main thing it allows is developing offline en environments like chromebooks (like the new Pixel). I worked on Cloud9IDE for a year and it was a great experience as long as you were online with a fast connection. With this library, htm
26. 86.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    I never used the "official" js codec because it didn't exist when I started. My codec has been optimized for nodejs and does rather well there. I recently did a jsperf for the browser port (msgpack-js-vs-json) and while slower than the no
27. 87.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    Interesting format. It appears easier to implement than msgpack in a scripting language. My gut feeling is that mspack will be slightly more compact and faster to decode (especially if decoded using C).
28. 88.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    That makes much more sense, thanks.
29. 89.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    Interestingly, in Firefox, the gap is smaller, their typed array implementation is a bit faster. For the number heavy case, msgpack is only 47% slower which is close enough in performance for a great many use cases.
30. 90.▲
    by creationix 14y ago

    Just an update, it turns out that Typed Arrays aren't as fast as node's Buffer implementation. When comparing msgpack-js-browser to the native JSON library, JSON is way faster in chrome. http://jsperf.com/msgpack-js-vs-json However, in t