Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal

https://github.com/iojs/io.js/issues/978

by inglor • 11 years ago

225 73 11 years ago

simplyluke• 11 years ago

I really hope we can see a unification of the efforts and work through the political issues. Having very talented developers working on separate codebases instead of improving one seems counterproductive.

BinaryIdiot2• 11 years ago

They have to merge otherwise one will die. There is no alternative. I hope it happens sooner rather than later.

pekk• 11 years ago

Multiple languages coexist. Within Javascript, there are multiple module systems, general utility/polyfill libraries, test runners... for better or worse, we continue to have many alternatives for almost anything. So why not also different implementations of a language interpreter?

tbolt• 11 years ago

If these projects don't get merged, it's going to be a shitshow in my opinion.

inglor5• 11 years ago

Why? io is more stable and fixes get backported to node when it's possible to backport them.

io.js can certainly benefit from these fixes but I don't think it'll be a "shitshow".

lbotos• 11 years ago

isn't the reason io was formed because node was so outdated? It had a way old version of v8.

xdissent• 11 years ago

I think you nailed it with "when it's possible." What about when it isn't? They're clearly divergent projects, so now you have to keep track of whether every npm package you use supports Io or Node, and which version of each. Package authors are now responsible for supporting one or the other, or becoming an expert on the differences in order to support both. It's a crappy burden on all parties involved.

inglor5• 11 years ago

Similar thread on NodeJS's GitHub. Booming with comments and interesting discussion as usual ;) https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/9295

keslag2• 11 years ago

Well, considering the issue was created 6 minutes before you posted this comment, this is facetious and disingenuous.

inglor5• 11 years ago

I didn't notice that - but 42 minutes later I think the comment still stands :)

Check out the other top 5 issues - it's mainly a bunch of people talking to themselves.

Anyhow - I genuinely wanted to link to both - not trying to poke at node.

shadowmint• 11 years ago

Given that the Node guys are publicly saying things like 'Io.js, what's that?' I think a little bit of snark is justified.

baudehlo• 11 years ago

Why would people comment there though when the issue even points out that the discussion is on the io.js issue? Seems rather petty.

drawkbox• 11 years ago

Rails and Merb did it (http://yehudakatz.com/2008/12/23/rails-and-merb-merge/).

However io.js seems to be setup the right way here. Javascript development growth is still in massive growth phase. It is hard to prove the singularity exists when paths keep diverting.

I think it is probably healthy to have 2+ or have one win out in the market. Or maybe create others as javascript becomes more prevalent. As the overall javascript development market gets bigger, this will happen more and more. If it gets crazy divergent then standards come about so they work together better. Everything is going to be alright.

amelius• 11 years ago

But how does one know which packages run on which platforms?

And how does one not get caught in a dependency trap, where one of the modules you use ultimately (perhaps after upgrading) needs io.js, and another needs nodejs.

chris_wot• 11 years ago

Is the Node Foundation truly independent from Joyent? If not, I don't think it could work.

vezzy-fnord• 11 years ago

From my limited understanding of the situation as a casual observer, I'd say the optimal (or at least simplest) outcome here would be to do an egcs/gcc-style switch where io.js is officially christened as the next Node.js, and the incumbent Node.js deprecated.

That said, I'm not sure if Joyent will be receptive to such a move.

jballanc3• 11 years ago

My thoughts exactly. I think anyone not familiar with the history of GCC/EGCS would do well to read up a bit...the current node.js/io.js situation almost an exact parallel. I also hope that Joyent takes note that EGCS was probably one of the best things to happen to GCC, and that the shift in governance model is likely one of the reasons for GCC's current success.

cpeterso2• 11 years ago

This page has a detailed timeline and emails from the GCC/EGCS schism:

http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/history_of_gcc_d...

ac3606• 11 years ago

Why reconcile? This is awesome competition. It involves open-source competitors. Today's gripes will soon be forgotten.

sagivo• 11 years ago

it's open source, not commercial. there's no point for competition. it's better to join resources and create equilibrium. the industry will need standards which will cause one project to die (sooner or later) and we will loose all the talent and energy spent there.

codyps• 11 years ago

Competitive pressure isn't just useful for commercial projects, it is also useful for open source projects.

ac3606• 11 years ago

The joint resources/equilibrium broke down. That’s why the fork happened. It's a natural process.

Open-source competition is critical and beautiful. This is a major function of Github and a big reason why it’s successful.

Forget what the industry needs. Technology creates the industry. Now we're at the crossroads between the next great tech and the next great bureaucracy. Which side sounds cooler?

jballanc3• 11 years ago

Open source competition can be good when the differences are primarily technical (e.g. GCC vs LLVM/Clang). When the differences are primarily political (e.g. GCC vs EGCS), then the competition serves only as a distraction. As a mostly-uninvolved outside observer, this competition seems more like the later than the former.

ac3606• 11 years ago

Political competition is hugely important. Governance models are tech.

fugyk• 11 years ago

This type of competition is not good as there will only be minor differences which will confuse others. They will not be viewed as two different environments but two version of same environment. Developers will not want their libraries to work only with io when they can make it work with node with a hack. This can create situation like unix/windows compatibility. And using same package manager worsens the situation.

fr0styMatt2• 11 years ago

What's the background to all this? I'm not a JS dev so haven't been following, but the history would be interesting.

jdub• 11 years ago

OK, so: Henry VIII needed a male heir to ensure his power on the throne...

Fr0styMatt4• 11 years ago

Well played!

fapjacks• 11 years ago

Oh man I love it! There's no way Joyent is going to say yes to this, and the best part is that these are absolutely reasonable, sensible proposals. I grok that io.js core devs are totally serious about merging back into Node, but there's no way Joyent is going to go for this. I expect at best a counter-proposal (that may not even be public) that doesn't do these points justice. The ball is absolutely in Joyent's court, and whatever happens next will be at least entertaining.

cpeterso2• 11 years ago

I have read plenty about the io.js project's technical and political frustrations, but I have not seen much on Joyent's position. I don't understand why Joyent let Node languish when it is an extremely popular project and apparently a significant part of their business.

Recalling the GCC/EGCS schism in the late 1990s, I predict that Joyent will support Node 0.12 as an LTS release and io.js will become Node™ master.

http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Stallman/history_of_gcc_d...

jsprogrammer• 11 years ago

Why do you think Joyent will not say yes?

izolate• 11 years ago

Because in doing so they relinquish complete control in favor of io.js interests. I'm rooting for io.js, but this proposal amounts to what is essentially a takeover, not a merge.

dagw• 11 years ago

Because 'owning' Node is one of Joyent's big unique selling points.

Tarang2• 11 years ago

these are absolutely reasonable, sensible proposals

No they aren't. If you look at the changes to the Technical Comittee. The proposal is to add 3 members to it. I can't help but think there are way more people at Joyent. The TC seems to have alot of power on the direction of the project.

It doesn't seem reasonable to effectively stage a coup on node and ask Joyent to give up control over it.

Already__Taken• 11 years ago

I'm only a casual observer in this but to me it seems like Joyent pulled the coup. Node always used a benevolent dictator model but it seems lots of people don't like this being a corporate entity instead of some single guy to ping on github.

uptownJimmy• 11 years ago

What is there to love, precisely?

I must admit, I had some weird notion when I first started programming that the world of software geeks might be just a little bit less drama-centric than the rest of the human world, but I was very wrong. The soap-operatic emotions around Node are amazing to me. Good lord, it's JavaScript on the server, not royal palace intrigue...

serve_yay• 11 years ago

Yes, software development involves humans, like many other human endeavors.

morgante• 11 years ago

Honestly, this just makes io.js look even more childish. They're issuing ultimatums without any reasonable chance of success.

There are completely logical technical reasons for forking node into io.js. There are even political changes which need to be made.

But instead of trying to reasonably discuss the future of Node in a collaborative fashion, io.js has essentially issued an ultimatum which determines the entire governance structure of Node (including an entirely new management team). It's a desired coup, driven by an ultimatum, in the guise of a "proposal."

stingraycharles• 11 years ago

Yeah this whole issue can even be interpreted as being passive-agressive. Not saying that it is, but it just has a weird feeling surrounding it, almost as if there is a huge grudge between each other, and being overly political (correct).

They are not really starting a discussion, this is more of a "you need to do everything different, or else..", as if they are now building up some evidence that they can later use to support their argument of "hey, /we/ tried to be compatible, but it is /their/ fault".

But I'm probably reading too much into this.

tracker1• 11 years ago

Given that the majority of development contributers went over to io.js, it makes sense for the structure for technical decisions to more closely resemble io.js while yeilding marketting type things to the new Node.js organization.

petercooper2• 11 years ago

Such a coup does rest on most of the 359 working groups voting in agreeance according to the provisional and not yet entirely decided, declared, or ratified by-laws of the tentative constitution of the current committee's purview of the project, however.

My opinion? I shall say that, as far as we can see, looking at it by and large, taking one thing with another in terms of the average of the will of the working groups, then in the final analysis it is probably true to say, that at the end of the day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there probably isn't an easy way to tell if they'll vote one way or the other. As far as one can see, at this stage.

I do see that there is a real dilemma here. In that, while it has been the policy to regard policy as a responsibility of Joyent and administration as a responsibility of Joyent's officials, the questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the policy of administration and the administration of policy, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts, or overlaps with, responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy.

mintplant• 11 years ago

Downvoted or not, this is now my favorite comment on the site. Bureaucratic surrealism is the best way to describe the situation.

somanim• 11 years ago

and it all goes downhill from there... I was never a big fan on node.js. it's mainstream popularity seems due to its corporate governance. io has just been so much more agile and faster, that I really worry that we will see stagnation now if this all goes through

nnain• 11 years ago

Funny thing about trying to standardize products or frameworks - You start with one fine product. Someone wants a bit extra, so they make a fork of the project. Then someone tries to make an all encompassing product to cover all the subsets. So there is a third one out there. Now you have to maintain not 2 but 3 separate projects, and document everything. The same story happens so often, people still try.

modarts• 11 years ago

This is shaping up to be even more entertaining than I previously imagined

CmonDev• 11 years ago

... or just abandon both and use a proper server-side language?

runewell• 11 years ago

I hope the two groups are able to work out their differences. I would love to see some of the strengths of io.js transfer into Node.js from both a technical and organizational perspective. The io.js project has been surprisingly thorough. So far they have kept on a consistent schedule of updates, provided excellent transparency regarding their team meetings and working groups, and they have been very responsive to feedback. I still use Node.js (with the harmony flag) for my production servers in hopes that there will be a merger soon but I may be in a dilemma if it doesn't happen within the next few months.

drderidder• 11 years ago

All the core team really lacks now is the node.js label. Joyent's trademark seems weak, since the term was in prior use for commercial purposes well before they came along. A trademark challenge might be one possibility. On the other hand, name changes in other open source projects have worked out just fine.

Io.js and Node.js reconciliation proposal

Related Stories