NodeUp is not exclusively node core committers nor has it ever included the full list of committers so the views represented should not be viewed as "core".
While our personal views about coffeescript may be negative node is committed to support (but not include or bundle) the use compile target languages. No one will ever have the level of support that javascript has but we won't be going out of our way to disable it. GitHub Followers are a good indication that something is interesting, they should not be considered supporters or an accurate representation of adoption. For instance: express: 5,823 npm: 2,605 There is no question that npm has wider adoption than express. While express is hugely popular it *requires* npm to be installed :) One thing I've noticed is that GitHub followers mean you have something interesting, not that you have something they use. My suspicion is that many followers don't actually use the project they are following but find it interesting enough to keep an eye on. The closest metric we have for adoption is "depended on" http://search.npmjs.org/. But, this metric also falls short. For instance, depending on express is an indicator of how well it's been adopted by people building plugins, same with connect, but not a good indicator for it's actual adoption since web frameworks are mainly used by applications which are not pushed to the registry. Similarly, coffeescript has a larger representation that it's actual usage since *any* module written in coffeescript includes it as a dependency. Fibers has about 12 modules that depend on it. Streamline has about 4. If you want to compare that against common utilities that use standard node practices for async (request:420,socket.io.202,redis:175) it's quite low. Even comparing fibers and streamline to popular flow control libraries that use standard node practices (async:354,step:64) fibers and streamline have sparse adoption. Not saying nobody uses them or that they don't have a bit of a following, but by the actual numbers we have their adoption is quite limited compared with standard node practices, especially when compared to how vocal they are championed on this list whenever a thread like this appears. It would seem that the majority of node developers are content with standard callbacks and find ways to deal with them and are not running towards blocking style abstractions, they just don't care enough to yell a lot on every thread like the authors of alternatives. On Apr 10, 2012, at April 10, 20126:26 PM, Joe Ferner wrote: > Not sure if 10 was it, that's the only one I could find from searching > the text of the episodes. They are definitely not coffeescript fans if > you listen through a couple of the episodes. > > On Apr 10, 9:13 pm, Mark Hahn <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I think it was episode 10 of nodeup (http://nodeup.com/ten) where they >> >> railed on it for 10 minutes. There is also a pull request (https:// >> github.com/joyent/node/pull/2472) where they complain about it that is >> pretty funny. >> >> They didn't trash coffeescript, they were trashing the idea of using it for >> node core. There is a big difference. > > -- > 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 [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en -- 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nodejs?hl=en?hl=en
