If deno is supported, I prefer it to node. But unfortunately node support is still the “standard” for most platforms I’d say.

This is a bit of a humorous comment considering the current NPM drama.

To be that guy: you’re objecting to someone’s subjective phrasing while also using your own subjective phrasing.

Language is malleable and messy, and I find it doesn’t help discourse if you attack the surface reading of a comment. I don’t think OP is “accusing of hate”, I think they’re expressing surprise that such negative sentiments exist to a sensible issue. I agree, as do you it seems.

(And yes, in writing this I asked myself if I’m reacting to your terminology or the intent behind the words. I hope it’s the latter)

The sad reality that you had to tell your stance by saying that you donated in this context otherwise people would've considered you an (anti deno?) in this lawsuit...

I think our actions speak louder than words.

Yes, I think we shouldn't spread hate speech and everyone has their own biases.

We should all preferably write comments in good faith hoping to learn something new from the others point of view.

So this was a fresh breath of view as in that I feel like this might be the best way of not literally accusing others but at the same time, I feel like that there might be some malicious actors or people not acting in completely good faith that can be indirectly supported by not accusing anyone y'know?

If somebody is bringing their personal VC sucks vendetta (I hate VC but I mean I can stand behind donations if they are transparent etc.) into a discussion, its not entirely good faith and shouldn't be accused at a (somewhat?) rate.

I think that the situation imo is that deno might have some good people but it would still be better if it wasn't deno suing them but rather some other preferably non profit which we could donate to that can sue it instead.

Maybe (node?)

I want Deno to succeed. They already have enough challenges between bun and Node taking all of their good ideas and incorporating them. I want the ecosystem to have more options.

This is Oracle we are talking about here. I would cut off my nose to spite Oracle’s face if necessary, they are some of the worst corporate actors in the history of the world. And that is not an exaggeration.

Litigation is not just 'file and forget'. Deno, or any other organisation, needs to contribute in time and effort for several years. In my opinion, "media attention / clout" is a fair compensation.

Sure they benefit, but so do a lot of other people. Sound fair to ask everyone else to pitch in. Deno have already bankrolled this themselves for a while.

[flagged]

This is a form of marketing.

As is the existence of Hacker News.

You seem to be implying that it is bad because it is marketing, and marketing is bad. But not all forms of marketing are bad. This is a classic association fallacy[1]. In this case, Deno can both improve perception of their brand and reclaim "JavaScript" -- it's a win-win.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

It's effective. I feel positively about anyone willing to take Oracle to court.

It’s a little late for hockey stick growth though, no?

Getting into a legal battle with oracle would be an incredibly expensive PR effort, especially as they filed and started the process without donations.

$200k is absolutely not going to come close to covering their legal fees possibly in any scenario but definitely if Oracle tries to drag out the process.

Yes. Ryan Dahl has openly said this. It isn't a "gotcha" nor is it something they're hiding. Tweet from Ryan Dahl:

> I can justify spending money on it because it does get Deno's name out there - blog posts posted to http://deno.com, etc - but without support it's pretty likely our legal bills will dwarf whatever that marketing is worth

That feels like cutting off your nose to spite your face. You can be in favor insofar as it's a public service and otherwise disregard.

Isn't that exactly what they're doing here? My understanding is Deno is asking the courts to invalidate Oracle's JavaScript trademark, making it a generic term in the public domain. They are not asking for the mark to be re-assigned to Deno.

Why are you being cryptic about it?

> I think the order here is reversed: If you ask the public for money, it's fair to perform a public service. If you just do something you wanted to do anyways, and probably would have done anyways, then it might be viewed as less-than-charitable to ask others for money to help you achieve your goal for yourself (even if other people might benefit somewhat too).

I don't think it's reversed.

I coach a high school robotics team (volunteer, unpaid) and last season I went into my pocket for an unknown amount of money, but was not less than $5K and probably closer to $7K.

I'm clearly going to do it anyway; is it wrong for me to go out and seek sponsorships for the team so I don't have to dig quite as deep into my own pocket?

I don't think it's even the tiniest bit wrong nor in any way less-than-charitable.

>I think the order here is reversed: If you ask the public for money, it's fair to perform a public service. If you just do something you wanted to do anyways, and probably would have done anyways, then it might be viewed as less-than-charitable to ask others for money to help you achieve your goal for yourself (even if other people might benefit somewhat too). Especially when you are far richer (like 100+ times richer) than the people you're asking for money.

I get the where you're coming from, but it's this exact attitude that ends up with critical infra like OpenSSL being maintained ad hoc by some devoted geek for a pittance, who inevitably can't keep up with critical patches.

The entire point is that oracle has done nothing with the trademark - especially not being a good steward. What bizarro world are you living in?

Freedom is all very well until someone decides they are free to come and take your stuff, or lie about you, or pretend to be you.

For example, low effort trolling, or self-propagating supply chain attacks.

Most people just call the language "JS" cause Oracle doesn't own that trademark. That's why you wouldn't be able to have a JavascriptConf but we do have JSConf. This is a long-winded way of saying that we already know what people would do with the freedom to speak the name of the language and it's nothing worth fearmongering over...

It's for the courts to determine who had what rights, but it's Oracle that is credibly accused of greatly exceeding the rights given them under the law