
The Linux Foundation Unites the JavaScript Community for Open Web Development - fagnerbrack
https://js.foundation/announcements/2016/10/17/Linux-Foundation-Unites-JavaScript-Community-Open-Web-Development/
======
ysavir
I thought this was interesting at first. An effort to push the JS environment
towards standardization is a much needed initiative.

Then I saw the "initial projects" list.

"Appium, contributed by Sauce Labs, is an open source Node.js server..."

"Interledger.js, contributed by Ripple, enables instant payments and
micropayments in any currency..."

"JerryScript, contributed by Samsung, is a lightweight, fully-featured
JavaScript engine for Internet of Things..."

"Node-RED, contributed by IBM, is a flow-based programming environment built
on Node.js..."

This made it very clear that the founding members of the "JS Foundation" are
not interested in developing and promoting the best open source tools, those
tools which are most deserving of broad adaption. To them, this is a way to
promote _their own_ tools. They aren't doing this for the good of the of JS
ecosystem, they are doing it to push their own brands on developers.

~~~
spraak
Though nice to see moment and webpack

~~~
Pigo
Agreed, at least with webpack. My number one gripe with moment is that I have
to shim it in when using webpack. It still expects to be added to global
scope, just like jquery. I'd really like to find a modular version, or another
project that has as much functionality.

~~~
tracker1
I haven't had any problem with `require('moment')` doesn't leak into my global
scope. jQuery is a different story, given how plugins tend to work.

------
ggregoire
Not sure why this announce is so upvoted (maybe because the title is full of
buzzwords?).

If we look at this announce:

* the jQuery foundation (jQuery + jQuery UI) becomes the JS foundation (jQuery + jQuery UI + IBM + Samsung + unknown companies)

* the list of founding members is awkward. IBM to unite the JavaScript community? IBM is the company who creates things like JSONx [1]. These founders have done nothing for the web, for JavaScript or for the open source community. Where are the main actors like Facebook, Google, Microsoft or Netflix?

This new partnership is an attempt to gain visibility by companies that are
non-existent in the JavaScript community.

To be clear: the JS foundation will not make the JavaScript ecosystem finally
less fragmented and more standardized (the common complaints on Hacker News).

[1]
[https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SS9H2Y_7.5.0/com...](https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SS9H2Y_7.5.0/com.ibm.dp.doc/json_jsonxconversionexample.html)

~~~
na85
>Where are the main actors like Facebook, Google, Microsoft or Netflix?

I'd argue that the main actors (and others) have driven the web backwards, not
forwards. They've done this by the push towards capturing consumers in a
walled garden, the rejection of open standards, the embrace of DRM, the
selling of user private data for profit, etc.

You listed companies I'd invite to sit on the board of some kind of User
Tracking Foundation, but not anything to do with open web development.

~~~
shadowfox
> I'd argue that the main actors (and others) have driven the web backwards,
> not forwards. They've done this by the push towards capturing consumers in a
> walled garden, the rejection of open standards, the embrace of DRM, the
> selling of user private data for profit, etc

That could well be. I just don't quite see what that has to do with moving
Javascript forward.

~~~
wodencafe
It doesn't, it's about Javascript being driven backwards by big $.

~~~
ben_jones
That just opens a pedantic conversation on what "forwards" is, which is mostly
relative. A PM will think "forward" is faster development, an engineer might
view "forward" as better best practices and better mean software quality.
"Forwards" to Facebook is more ad impressions.

The real answer is probably a combination of all the above, which qualifies
for GP's comment.

------
kowdermeister
I don't see the need for this to cherry pick a few project and push them with
the Linux brand. The JS landscape is fragmented for a good reason and I don't
see that as problem in fact, rather as a feature. With NPM and YARN we already
have a good enough package management system and their platform can help me
evaluate if a package is community supported enough. I'm talking about the
stats that I can just check: number of stars, contributors and open/closed
issue ratios.

If someone understood it better than me please add your thoughts.

I also don't see faces here:
[https://js.foundation/members/](https://js.foundation/members/) Who runs the
show?

~~~
omegote
How can you find the js fragmentation a feature and not a stinking pile of
shit? Seriously.

~~~
kowdermeister
First the term. By fragmentation I mean two things: 1) we have many libraries
doing the same thing. 2) the implementation is JS is not the same in every
environment.

If you are spending most of your time writing other languages which have a
standard library, I can understand your opinion.

However, I see fragmentation as:

1) It introduces the opportunity everyone on the planet to give a shot at
implementing something that may or may not be better than we consider today
the best. For example I used a datepicker in my latest project but in the
current it failed and I could replace it in 15 minutes rather than spending
hours finding the issue with the "standard one". I'm not really experienced in
the C++ world, but I guess people would call me crazy if I proposed a new
stdio lib. Maybe there could be better libraries, who knows. It's a settled
game there. See jQuery in JS land, it was for many years, "the golden tool".
Now we have alternatives for more specialized workflows. Not everybody wears
the same hat all the time.

2) EcmaScript is constantly evolving, that causes another fragmentation, but
this also allows the dev community to propose changes, implement new features
and create a really vibrant feedback loop. If you stick to the latest stable
(currently ES5) you are safe to build whatever you like with great stability.

~~~
inimino
The fact that people can contribute is great, the fact that it is impossible
to get started in modern JS development without making dozens of seemingly
inscrutable choices is not.

~~~
kowdermeister
That's because "modern javascript" is not there yet, it's still in an
experimental phase, we need transpilers and other stuff to use features that
are not in a finished state. It will get better with time.

~~~
monocasa
So when is Javascript not going to be in an experimental phase? A couple of
years ago it would have been 'when browsers support ES6'. Now it's 'when
browsers support ES7'. Next year it's going to be 'when browsers support ES8'.

~~~
irrational
To be fair, ES6 was huge. ES7, and probably ES8, are tiny by comparison with
only a few new features. Once browser creators get caught up on ES6 it
_shouldn't_ be too hard to stay caught up after that point.

But, most of experimentation isn't around the core ECMA features. The
experimentation is happening around the toolchain, the libraries, the
frameworks, etc. which are separate from stuff like ES6.

------
mixonic
Expanding the jQuery foundation in this way is an exciting change, and one I'm
interested to follow and learn from. Ember.js for example has taken some tips
from how jQuery grew and managed itself, however we've also avoided what we
think were some missteps.

I hope the organizers of JSF can share what works and doesn't with the wider
community. If they want to solve fragmentation in JavaScript projects, no one
organization will do that. The need to share their ideas where they work well.

I asked a few questions on Twitter yesterday to this end, and if there is a
JSF member around I would really appreciate some thoughts:

* What does the "mentorship program" look like? It is mentioned several times but not with much detail. ([https://twitter.com/mixonic/status/788046983437037568](https://twitter.com/mixonic/status/788046983437037568))

* Can provide context re: "Today the JS Foundation touts a new open, technical governance structure"? What are the changes, and what led to them? [https://twitter.com/mixonic/status/788038708364587008](https://twitter.com/mixonic/status/788038708364587008)

* What are the motivations for moving to Apache 2.0 as a default license? I expect something about IBM and the patent clause. Does adopting this license attract more corporate participation?

Thank you!

------
opendomain
A few years ago, some high profile organizations (W3C, Adobe, Facebook,
Google, Hp, Intel, Microsoft, Mozilla, Nokia, Opera) came together to try to
help standardize the web platform [1](Javascript, CSS, HTML). That was a HUGE
failure - because it was driven by business rather than developers. How will
the "Javascript foundation" do better?

[1] [http://webplatform.com](http://webplatform.com)

~~~
pags
Developers can't be trusted to make good decisions about the tools they use
either.

~~~
Twirrim
We're all just pretty much screwed :D

------
gerbal
From my perspective the main benefit of this is there is now a non profit that
can take over administration of JS projects the community values but the
original developers want to abandon.

~~~
adrianratnapala
Has such an argangment ever worked in practice? I have read here on HN about
how the Apache brand is used as a dumping ground for zombie projects. Why
would it be different for the Linux Foundation?

~~~
k__
Isnt CouchDB an Apache project?

Seems to me like it get's updated

~~~
gtirloni
~45% of the releases listed on the Apache website are older than a year (900
out of 1961).

Source:
[https://projects.apache.org/releases.html](https://projects.apache.org/releases.html)

------
Dowwie
Shocking how the javascript community has done just fine before this group of
well funded enterprises organized and nominated itself as leader of that
community.

This is an attempted capture of a major open source community by commercial
interests.

~~~
Pigo
If that is the case, I say good luck to them. They might as well try to hold
on to a handful of sand.

------
Semiapies
_We 're uniting the community by...declaring that we're uniting the
community!_

------
davidgerard
"founding members include Bocoup, IBM, Ripple, Samsung, Sauce Labs, Sense
Tecnic Systems, SitePen, StackPath, University of Westminster and
WebsiteSetup."

There's a name missing there I would have expected to see. Starts with M.
Mo... mo ... something.

~~~
cwyers
That's a really odd list of founding members, period.

And yeah, managing to do this without having ONE of:

* Mozilla * Google * Microsoft * Apple * Adobe * Facebook * eBay

Is just... weird. But they have IBM and Samsung.

~~~
opendomain
* Mozilla * Google * Microsoft * Adobe *Facebook

DID work together to try to help standardize the web platform [1] a few years
ago.

Unfortunately, it failed, mostly because of politics.

[1] [http://WebPlatform.Com](http://WebPlatform.Com)

~~~
minitech
It looked like documentation and had no clear benefit over MDN. If it wasn’t
just documentation, a terrible job was done in communicating that.

------
cdnsteve
"aims to drive broad adoption and ongoing development of key JavaScript
solutions and related technologies and to facilitate collaboration within the
JavaScript development community to ensure those projects maintain the quality
and diverse contribution bases that provide for long-term sustainability."

Does this mean this new foundation will be offering funding for projects?

------
thrillgore
As confusing as this appears (are they going to handle new ECMAScript
specifications? I am so confused), I am glad that they're supporting
Moment.js. It has become one of my default libs, like jQuery, when working on
a new project.

~~~
pluma
The JS Foundation is just the rebranded jQuery Foundation. Despite its name
the jQuery Foundation already had a much broader scope than just jQuery (e.g.
also Dojo).

The JS Foundation is not related to TC39, the organization in charge of new
ECMAScript editions. I guess they might sponsor a TC39 member eventually and
engage in JS advocacy beyond merely supporting JS open source projects --
similar to what the PSF and its affiliates do for Python.

------
mcs_
I'm OK with foundations or even companies that want to attract folk with
opensource.

Will see in 3 or 5 years the results but looking at recent Facebook activity
this strategy works fine.

------
CoryG89
Does anyone know if this will affect the licensing of these projects? Linux
uses GPL, but I believe most of these projects use MIT.

~~~
ghaff
The Linux Foundation already has a wide variety of projects besides Linux
which are covered by a number of different licenses depending upon the
project.

[https://www.linuxfoundation.org/projects](https://www.linuxfoundation.org/projects)

~~~
k__
Also, they say "open web" not "free web" so we're probably save.

------
stpapa
Interested to hear - what kind of effect will this have on the fragmentation
we see in the JavaScript ecosystem?

~~~
pluma
Most likely? None at all. But it might ensure the long-term survival of some
popular libraries that could otherwise eventually die off (kinda like Apache).

Case in point: [https://medium.com/webpack/sustaining-webpack-for-the-
future...](https://medium.com/webpack/sustaining-webpack-for-the-future-
part-2-7055282d7864)

------
jabinaro
Anyone use JerryScript? I found it to be incomplete.

------
themihai
And when I thought we are about to get ride of JS(though wasm)... Still
doesn't make any sense to me.

------
sebringj
NPM actually did that.

------
dylanks2
Here's my take on all of this:
[https://www.sitepen.com/blog/2016/10/17/announcing-the-js-
fo...](https://www.sitepen.com/blog/2016/10/17/announcing-the-js-foundation/)

The feedback is interesting, but I think it helps to understand more of the
history to get that most of the negative feedback here is overreaction. Some
thoughts:

* No, the foundation isn't trying to dominate or tell people what to do. It's trying to support open source projects through their lifecycle. Running a project can be a rather lonely and frustrating experience at times, but can also be very rewarding

* Open source foundations provide legal protection to individuals and corporations that contribute and use open source software, and help ensure that one company or person doesn't turn evil and try to pull the carpet out from under the community (which has happened many times in the history of OSS)

* Regarding standardization, the foundation has members on TC39, W3C TAG, etc. Helping with standards is time consuming (and something I personally don't want to spend any time on), but it does help to gather ideas and have a way to contribute in a smaller way to the process

* As a foundation, we don't require any project to merge or conform with another. We have 3 testing tools (Intern, Mocha, and QUnit) which all have different philosophical approaches. But there are certainly things we could collaborate on, inside or outside the foundation.

* The foundation is not a place for projects to go to die. For example, many think of Dojo 1.x as old (because it's been under active use and development since 2004), but if you look at the work being done on Dojo 2 ( [http://github.com/dojo/meta](http://github.com/dojo/meta) ), you'll see that it's on its way to reinventing itself as a modern TypeScript based approach to building web apps.

* Over the years we've worked with many large companies, and it's important to remember that companies are made of individuals. These companies have behaved on the OSS front in a very helpful manner (and I'm a huge skeptic in general). IBM has contributed as much over the years to JS OSS as anyone out there. The amount of help they provided in a11y and i18n is second to none, and they've helped Dojo, jQuery, PhoneGap/Cordova and others in significant ways.

* The list of founding members is smaller than we would have liked, but many times, you need to put something out there before people will join (it's more difficult to convince someone to sponsor something not yet announced than something fully baked). And just because you haven't heard of a company doesn't mean they don't do interesting and important things. The goal was not to just get a bunch of large companies to push their logos, but to get a group of people that care about the open web involved.

Overall it seems like the community loves to hate on things out of FUD
(nothing new), but really we're just a group of people that create OSS that
solves problems we have as developers. Really we just want to help, and a
foundation is just one way to encourage collaboration.

------
kowdermeister
#927 :)

------
revelation
Wow can you say "scope creep"

~~~
pluma
Why?

The Linux Foundation is not specific to Linux and already includes the Node
Foundation which maintains Node.js.

The JS Foundation is just the rebranded jQuery Foundation which already
included projects not related to jQuery (e.g. Dojo or Grunt).

Neither foundation has changed its scope with this announcement.

------
hoorayimhelping
I don't have a ton of experience with the Linux Foundation, but publishing a
list of "official" JavaScript libraries to seems like a step in the right
direction. One of the largest complaints about the JS ecosystem today is the
huge number of choices in libraries available. Maybe this provides a good
starting point for a lot of people who feel lost. Or maybe it's just one more
library that we all have to understand and make a decision about.

~~~
StreamBright
I am not sure if anybody can pick the right library for a company other than
the technical leadership, though.

~~~
hoorayimhelping
Very true. Hopefully this provides a good starting point to get the the
discussion going, especially for things where there are multiple options.
momentjs is a good example - I don't think there's a better library for
dealing with time in JavaScript. But Mocha might be contentious - some people
love the Jasmine/Mocha/Jest family, other people prefer the Tap/Tape/Ava
lineage. Here's to hoping this makes the discussions easier to have.

