
Node.js and the Road Ahead - fcambus
http://blog.nodejs.org/2014/01/16/nodejs-road-ahead/
======
selmnoo
I really don't like that Joyent basically 'owns' nodejs. They gain from more
people using nodejs and using it in a certain way; the complex dynamic
happening here is a major turn-off (Joyent controls the nodejs repo). Not to
mention the recent brouhaha in which Joyent facilitated forcing out one of the
biggest nodejs contributors, an individual who incidentally happened to be an
employee of their biggest competitor. Do you really want to use the products
of this environment?

~~~
Zikes
Guys, guys, come on. We should respect their wishes to never talk about that
again and forget the whole thing ever happened.[1]

I mean, it's not like they ought to apologize for the atrocious way they
facilitated the virtual lynching of one of their core contributors. Better to
just sweep it all under the rug.

[1] [http://blog.nodejs.org/2013/12/03/bnoordhuis-
departure/](http://blog.nodejs.org/2013/12/03/bnoordhuis-departure/)

EDIT: For the folks that say it's just "petty drama", I invite you to read
another man's account of a very similar experience:
[http://www.polygon.com/2013/11/6/5075106/adam-orth-xbox-
one-...](http://www.polygon.com/2013/11/6/5075106/adam-orth-xbox-one-gdc-next)

Internet bullying isn't just some thing that happens to teenagers. It's a
stream of tweets, phone calls, texts, hate mail, death threats, and more. I
can only speculate about how much of that Ben received, but a fair share of it
was very public, and Joyent was a participant in that.

As the face of node.js it was Joyent's responsibility to defuse the situation
and protect the people involved. Instead they threw gasoline into the fire,
further inciting the mob justice that was already well underway.

~~~
untog
_We should respect their wishes to never talk about that again_

It's hardly just their wishes. Plenty of us wish that any discussion about
Node wouldn't immediately get dragged down into petty drama. Maybe we could,
y'know, talk about the language and ecosystem for a change.

~~~
Zikes
I think you posted your reply just as I made an edit to my comment. I invite
you to re-read my comment and reassess the value of the "petty drama".

------
erichocean
I predict that 0.10.x will be with us for a long time. It's now the Windows XP
SP2 of Node.js releases. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes before
Joyent _refuses_ to accept patches to the 0.10.x branch. When they do, that'll
be the point to seriously consider moving off of Node.js to a project with
adults running it.

In addition to all of the political crap with Joyent, the changes in 0.12.x
are incredibly onerous at the C++ level, for no obvious benefit whatsoever
(thanks, v8 team). I know our company is sticking with 0.10.x for the
indefinite future because we're not allocating man power to update the dozen
or so compiled node modules we use (along with all of the new bugs changing
that many changes will inevitably bring with it).

Instead, in the future we'll be dropping down to either libuv directly (all of
our compiled libraries are written in C–C++ is just used to bind to Node.js),
and we're also looking carefully at luvit, since Lua binds to C so nicely, and
LuaJIT is seriously awesome. :)

So between Joyent forcing Ben Noordhuis out and their corporate "it's our way
or the highway" bullshit, we just have a really bad taste in our mouths about
the future of Node.js with Joyent at the helm.

~~~
iends
I agree entirely. I'm particularly disappointed with Isaac, whose response to
a proposal for foundation was this
[https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nodejs/mqSf47HhmyY/m8QpZE9mJ...](https://groups.google.com/d/msg/nodejs/mqSf47HhmyY/m8QpZE9mJoEJ)
which he claims it would cost 1-2m a year for a node foundation. Either this
is FUD, or he's missing something (or I am).

------
railsdude
Link to yesterday's discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7064470](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7064470)
\- "The Next Phase of Node.js"

~~~
sisk
FWIW, different discussion. That was from the outgoing maintainer, this from
the incoming one.

