On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 10:56:50 AM UTC+2, Fedor Indutny wrote: > Yikes! > Another flame war here :) Obviously, stability is good. There're definitely some problems in core that worth fixing, but lets do a big 1.0 release first ;)
I don't feel any heat. I don't think that anyone could reasonably disagree with Isaac. It's just that the strong emphasis on "node is done" concerned me a bit. IMO it's not, although some future directions might warrant a name change. Nobody knows at this point. But Node 1.0 is definitely done. On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:29:07 PM UTC+2, Isaac Schlueter wrote: > When and if a clear winner arises from userland, if it can be merged > into core without breaking backwards compatibility, then we can > consider it. You and I have had that conversation before, and I'm > sure we'll keep having it :) Yes, and I agree that this is not the time. It's just that I don't want to shut that door forever, and I actually don't mind people discussing it on the mailing list, as long as they understand that it's not going into core soon (at least, not before 1.0) and it might never. (Also bringing up these topics in unrelated conversations is kind of annoying and people should refrain from that. Hello Michaël Rouges, we can all read the topic index ourselves, thanks.) > > * Error handling sucks. There's gigantic room for improvement here. > > Yes, I expect that we'll see interesting things by exposing the > continuation-tracking mechanisms and making Domains less baked-in. Hopefully :) I'll hold my breath (proverbially) until the conference season starts again. > > * What happened to the original dream that node would run in a network of > > nodes, which would together make up your app? > > Lots of people are doing this now. (Walmart, stackvm, Joyent, and the > npm website all come to mind.) And how's the experience been so far? In comparison to developing and running a single-process app, this quite super difficult and the experience is bad. > > So me and StrongLoop intend to keep working on improving it. It may be > > called node or it may not. > > Currently that is called "StrongLoop Node Distribution". This is a > paradigmatic example of what "userland" is for. Alright :) I don't think StrongLoop Node Distribution is going to be a playground for experimental core features, but we can think of something else. But let's be fair here. If "userland" and "fork" are the answer, why are people so mad about meteor? It's also a matter of culture. If the suggestion is to fork, then we shouldn't berate people for doing it afterwards. - Bert -- -- Job Board: http://jobs.nodejs.org/ Posting guidelines: https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Mailing-List-Posting-Guidelines You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To post to this group, send email to nodejs@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "nodejs" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nodejs+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
