One of the many symptoms of that slow development process is that Node.js is basically running an unsupported version of V8 (https://twitter.com/jmayer/status/532971494695907328).
From what I've read, node-forward is/was only meant as a fork in the GitHub sense: they'd try to get their stuff merged back into node mainline. The GitHub fork has since been made private (https://github.com/node-forward/discussions/issues/7) and they're working to set up a proper governance model so that the community can truly be in charge. Joyent has reacted (I believe, it might have been in the works prior to node-forward) by proposing a node advisory board (https://github.com/joyent/nodejs-advisory-board) but it seems to be too little too late for at least some of the people behind node-forward (I've read what seem like irreconcilable disagreements about how it should be run).
I have no idea what (if anything) io.js is in relation to node-forward or if the same people are behind it. Can't find any announcements / endorsements on Twitter, so maybe it was just posted here before whoever is behind it were ready to go live.
They probably don't want to publicly call out one of the core committers whose promised work is lagging. Or admit that the previous project lead was a poor choice who let it stagnate (but yet is inexplicably in the "Joyent did a bad job" camp). What good would that do anyone, apart from satisfy our boundless curiosity?
If Node wants to be taken seriously by a broader range of companies, it should be stable. There are forkers on the Joyent Node advisory board. As an open-source project, transparency will go a long way to gain community support from either side. So far, Joyent is winning the communication battle.
Recent article on the subject: http://readwrite.com/2014/11/13/node-js-joyent-possible-fork...
Arguably, this has been stewing for a while: http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/18/can-this-startup-steal-nod...
I am a huge node proponent, and don't encounter problems from outside the project. Joyent's articles and purpose have always been more clear to me than StrongLoop, which is why I use the services of the former. However I have a hard time believing these articles and rumors are the whole story, hopefully someone can chime in with more specific information.
The idea that the majority of core contribs are being uncommunicative is not really borne out by the growing community around node-forward and how open it actually is. They've set up live chat, a mentors list, help pages, given access to anybody who asks to the fork and are actively seeking input on new features like better numerical comp libs. It probably seems less communicative than it really is only because they want to wait till the concept is past nascent stage to announce anything. Totally not surprised that people have gotten fed up with Joyent and that forks are happening.
1 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nodejs/mqSf47HhmyYJoyent funded Ryan Dahl, Isaac Schlueter and other committers since 2009 or 2010, before the majority of programmers had heard of node.js. And node.js is firmly under an MIT license. Were the developers supposed to live off kudos and instant noodles?
If that's a grab, I wish more businesses would do that. We should be encouraging more investment by companies in open source, so complaining about Joyent stepping up to the plate and giving significant financial help to node.js during the early phase is a bit much.
This is an open-source project, and Joyent's repo has always been open. Node-forward and io.js's silence and secrecy can only invite suspicion in this situation. If contributors don't like Joyent's direction, kill them with kindness. Overwhelm node with useful PRs that have a ton of community support behind them. Playing these games IMHO is only bad for the community and for Node's image. Joyent seems to understand this.
I am trying to form an opinion to support Node's positive evolution and I shouldn't have to petition for access to contribute. That is exactly the excuse the forkers are using to justify their fork, and they're guilty of the same.
That is one of the most comedic issues on github. Worth a read, but tl;dr:
"all we need is to compile these ancient libraries! It should be easy, they are ancient and I am async!" ... "I failed to compile these ancient libraries."
1. Fixating on platform stability over project evolution
2. Ignoring the community on project direction
3. Preserving public image over project committers
4. Being a total square
NOTE: I am against the fork.
That's... hardly a bad thing, in my humble opinion. The other language I use at work, PHP, is a case-study in what happens when you "evolve" a project willy-nilly with little regard to platform stability. Nowadays, it's better, because the community has become more involved in the process, so I can see what #2 and #3 are Bad Things™ however.
I use node.js in production so I'm not knocking it outright but you quickly understand the plights if you try to do anything with node that scales well.
I had the feeling that much evolution happend from 1 to 5 but not much afterwards :\
There is hardly any difference between PHP 4 and 5, except internals. The only real big difference between PHP 3 and PHP 4 is a different class syntax.
I thought the class system was improved with 5 and was unusable with 4. At least that was what I read. I started with ... PHP 5.2
The reasons are myriad, both technically and politically, and you probably won't understand them unless you engage. If they weren't, we wouldn't be seeing something as drastic as a fork.