Getting a release out is the #1 task here, helping newcomers have something to engage with.
Upayavira On Thu, May 30, 2013, at 08:09 AM, Bruno Gonzalez wrote: > I agree, IMO efforts should be directed at getting more man power. Sadly, > ideas are mostly useless if there's no hands that will transform them > into > actual code. I don't know... a solid business plan for a kickstarter, > some > advertising magic that will attract developers to devote their time for > free, convince the public to donate copious amounts of money to the > project > (this was attempted by the now-offline fundwiab > <http://www.fundwiab.com/> initiative, > but it only managed to collect maybe 20 hours worth of developer time; > too > little to do any medium sized task), etc. > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:40 AM, Angus Turner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Nothing about it not being appropriate, everything about having the man > > power. Right now it's hard enough to maintain the code we've got. > > > > I personally would rather wave was written in a 'nice' language like JS or > > Python, but right now it's not worth the effort. > > > > Thanks > > Angus Turner > > [email protected] > > > > > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Blossom <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > Looking through some documentation on Wave-derived products, I am seeing > > > that there is some good use of Node.JS coding for server-side functions. > > > Why would it not be appropriate to replace some or all of the demo-model > > > code from Google on the server side with a light and powerful language > > such > > > as this? > > > > > > Good analysis of Node performance at: http://nodejs.org/jsconf2010.pdf > > > > > > Thanks for your feedback, > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > > -- > Saludos, > Bruno González > > _______________________________________________ > Jabber: stenyak AT gmail.com > http://www.stenyak.com
