To everyone chanting "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish", I'd like to remind you that Node proper was a golden egg sitting under Joyent's goose. When Joyent decided they didn't want to embrace anymore, the community took the extinguisher out of their hands. Granted, Microsoft is in a more similar position to Google than to Joyent, but the point of the argument is that the community has driven the language and the runtime forward, not the corporation backing it.<p>Unlike most of Microsoft's other EEE attempts, this time they're putting their code with their mouths are and putting it all up under MIT. There's little you can do to get more open and honest than that. If the community doesn't like the direction MS is taking Chakra, they're free to take it in a new direction. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but it's an option.
> ChakraCore<p>> The MIT License (MIT)<p>> Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation<p>Incredible!<p><a href="https://github.com/Microsoft/ChakraCore/blob/master/LICENSE.txt" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/Microsoft/ChakraCore/blob/master/LICENSE....</a>
Even if I'm in danger of stating the obvious, but MS really changed its approach to software.<p>And it is incredibly great having competition in the JS engine market.
I'm skeptical.<p>Over the past 5 years or so, Microsoft has lost developers as a core group. There are certainly interesting things happening out of their dev group, but with the rise of Cloud infrastructure, cheap (free) alternatives to WINS stacks rose tremendously in popularity.<p>I was a Seattle Techstars 2013 Founder, and the only two teams using MSFT tech were those whose founders were ex-Microsoft employees.<p>This just feels like a ploy to get developers back on to Microsoft's platforms, then slowly bleed them dry with fees.<p>*<p>My experience with the new Microsoft: One of our major products runs on Microsoft SQL Server. Sadly, many developers/ops folks did not realize the difference between SQL Server Enterprise, and SQL Server Standard, and opted to install SQL Server Enterprise on servers, despite not using any of the Enterprise features.<p>Not only does SQL Server Standard pricing differ compared to Enterprise, but <i>how</i> it's price differs. Enterprise is charged based on a per-core license, requiring both a core license for <i>every</i> core, as well as a minimum of 4-core's per physical processor.<p>During a routine Software Audit, MSFT determined we had quite a few more SQL Server Enterprise installs than we licensed, so sent us a nice fat bill. We asked for leniency. It was a mistake (ours of course), but we didn't use any of SQL Server Enterprise features.<p>MSFT wanted no part of that.<p>So we ponied up our bill, and decided to never use MSFT tech again.<p>Contrast that with AWS. Due to developer error, we had one of our AWS keys compromised and an attacker used it to mine bitcoins. Amazon sent us the bill. We contacted them, and they gave us a one-time forgiveness.<p>*<p>The morale of this story: Use microsoft technology at your own peril. Also, having developers handle infrastructure is cool, but don't discount the value of a dedicated infra team.
I've seen that a partial Linux support is on the roadmap, but does anyone know if there is a way to compile it with gcc or clang, or if it's on the roadmap ?
In the last couple years it seems like MS has been acting like the crazy-small-TV-shop-owner-doing-his-own-tv-ads : "Yes folks, we're open sourcing everything, cuz I'm crazy Bill". Mind you, this is good for devs finally getting access to this amazing technology!
Why nobody extends excellent platform like LuaJIT, it has all the qualities to becomes an "Uber" dynamic language platform.<p>LuaJIT platforms like luvIT[1] with proper VM management/diagnostics APIs will make it compelling solution for backend middlewares and IoT boards.<p>[1] <a href="https://luvit.io" rel="nofollow">https://luvit.io</a>
Similar item linking to the blog post: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10895994" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10895994</a>
We changed the url from <a href="https://github.com/Microsoft/ChakraCore" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/Microsoft/ChakraCore</a> to this, which points to the GitHub repo as well as containing more background info.
Interesting that the inbound terms (CLA) include an express patent license, while the outbound terms (MIT) have less clear patent language.<p>There is tremendous political and PR value in offering MIT outbound. Fun thought experiment: How different would reception be with Apache 2.0, Eclipse Public, or similarly "enterprisey" terms?
Caveat emptor. The license only gives you permission to use the code, not any patents covering it. So while you can read the code, to use it you need to either get a separate patent license or convince yourself that MS holds no patents on the code. I'm not going to do a patent search, nor do I want to know, but I would be surprised if they haven't patented aggressively.
I'd love to read an article about the various high-performance JS engines. Something like <a href="http://fabiensanglard.net/doom3/" rel="nofollow">http://fabiensanglard.net/doom3/</a> but for Nashorn, V8, JavascriptCore and Firefox covering approach, policies, code quality and bug stats.
Surprised they use WordPress to build this website. I thought they'd use Umbraco at the least.<p>It doesn't surprise me though. ASP.NET is a powerful platform which has seen some great improvements after MVC gained traction, but I wouldn't use it for anything simple where a static site generator or WordPress would get the job done.
MS changes towards open source is nice, but I wonder how long it will be before all these projects are usable and stable enough on Linux/BSD/OS X. Perhaps they should focus on bringing a single project cross-platform, like .Net, instead of simultaneously attacking so many fronts.
Looks like they're using the same business model as Quantopian. Get contributions for free, still hold tons of leverage over anyone else that tries to compete, but otherwise allow other people to use the code.
What is the main reason for not merging V8 and ChakraCore? It's really cool that teams from the big companies can learn tricks from each other, but as far as I see the goal of Google and Microsoft here is to just advance Javascript in the same standard direction. Have you talked about not duplicating all efforts?
(In case anyone thinks this is more amazing than it is: it runs on Windows only right now. But presumably someone will start working on Unix ports shortly.)
Good that it's open source, but I found this blurb from their contributing guidelines [0] to be contribution inhibiting:<p><i>You will need to complete a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) before your pull request can be accepted. This agreement testifies that you are granting us permission to use the source code you are submitting, and that this work is being submitted under appropriate license that we can use it.</i><p>[0] <a href="https://github.com/Microsoft/ChakraCore/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/Microsoft/ChakraCore/blob/master/CONTRIBU...</a>
Don't care really what you do Microsoft. Your legacy of vendor lock-in, monopoly market, unethical business strategies and even bribes still lives on today with your toy OS. You set us back many, many years. Hopefully this free and open movement will be your undoing.<p>Unfortunately there are people here right now that are paid to shill your crap and constantly come up with excues like "things have changed". Yeah right, like I will forget what you have done.