Re: [fonc] Server side JS and evolution

On 7/27/2011 5:47 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:38 PM, BGB > wrote: note that my definition of "fitness" also includes marketing forces and economics. for example, something can have be more "fit" because it has lots of money investe

Re: [fonc] Server side JS and evolution

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:38 PM, BGB wrote: > note that my definition of "fitness" also includes marketing forces and > economics. > for example, something can have be more "fit" because it has lots of money > invested into its marketing effort, ... > I objected specifically to your mentions of

Re: [fonc] Server side JS and evolution

On 7/27/2011 1:52 PM, David Barbour wrote: On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:40 AM, BGB > wrote: I think "fitness" and "merit" are some often misunderstood ideas. People understand just fine that a solution of technical merit can fail due to market forces, positioning,

Re: [fonc] Server side JS and evolution

On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:40 AM, BGB wrote: > I think "fitness" and "merit" are some often misunderstood ideas. > People understand just fine that a solution of technical merit can fail due to market forces, positioning, and fear of change. But they don't need to like it. > the solutions whic

Re: [fonc] Server side JS and evolution

On 7/27/2011 6:37 AM, David Goehrig wrote: On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Casey Ransberger mailto:casey.obrie...@gmail.com>> wrote: Worth pointing out that server side JS dodges this "problem." Now that Node is out there, people are actually starting to do stuff with JS that doesn't run on

[fonc] Server side JS and evolution

On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Casey Ransberger wrote: > > Worth pointing out that server side JS dodges this "problem." Now that Node > is out there, people are actually starting to do stuff with JS that doesn't > run on the client, so it's happening... whether or not it's a real > qualitativ