depend is not a very good measure either. Streamline is more for people who write applications than for library writers. And people don't publish whole applications to NPM. There are also a few who use it browser side.
On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:49:00 AM UTC+2, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > > 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 > > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 3:49:00 AM UTC+2, Mikeal Rogers wrote: > > 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
