It's a joint decision and I agree with it. I'm most invested in its success and have put the most work into it - and I no longer think it's where I can do the most important work. There are some good ideas in Deno and it's well engineered - but it ultimately is not solving big problems. It has been sucked into the gravity well of node compatibility, which forces it to behave exactly as Node does. Why reimplement Node? It works. Marginal performance or UX or security benefits are not enough.
I'm interested in building powerful new abstractions. celld has been working remarkably well, depending only on object storage for coordination and persistence. It is not just a slightly different API to interact with the file system or network - it's an entirely new model for server development. I wrote a bit about it here: https://x.com/rough__sea/status/2105853283617440032
We'll ship monthly releases for a year, and Deno stays MIT-licensed. If people want to carry it forward, I'd like that.
I don't often post on the orange website. But this news was enough to make me want to say congratulations, friend.
Looking back now after almost 20 years (Nov 2009 to now for me), I can see the arc from what node was then to what celld can be now as your thinking has evolved
A distributed operating system running in userspace is the primitive that can break apart the siloing that has become the default across the walled gardens we all operate in
Thanks for your response, ry. It's hard to put into words how much I appreciate your work, both on Node and Deno. Honestly, you saved me from a career as a Java dev. :) I've been using Node since 2013 and Deno since 2018 (when it was still written in Go)... I used both first for hobby projects and scripting and later, when they matured, also at work.
I disagree that there's little differentiation between Node and Deno these days. Sure, I love Deno's UX and tooling, but the security benefits Deno has over Node are still the number one reason, we're picking Deno over Node at work. I'm honestly sad we may have to reconsider and switch.
I understand you are working on a new model for server development and I'll take a look at celld for sure. But what about scripts? I have a couple hundred repositories all using Deno for a wide range of scripting tasks. I'd love to continue using Deno for scripting for another 8 years or longer.
I'm just feeling a bit sad, you know. It kinda feels like I'm gonna lose a friend. That happy little dinosaur, now standing in the pouring rain again...
Why let it get sucked into the gravity well of node compatibility then? How can the community carry it forward without you? Will CloudFlare release the name/assets, or it will have to be forked?
FWIW I think the project is likely highly maintainable with relatively small economic commitment. I would be willing to contribute. If anyone wants to discuss how we keep it going past the next year, please let me know.
...well, who decided to embrace Node compatibility?!
The DX of Deno far surpasses Node (or at least it did, idk if Node has caught up in that regard).
What are the big problems you see that still need solving that a future Deno (fork) could handle?
EDIT: Talking to people in the Discord and was reminded that the community may have been the inspiration. Adoption was low so boom, add Node compatibility and now adoption grows. MEH.
To be fair, Deno and Bun's enhancements seemed to do a lot to set a fire under Node and have it implement various things it didn't have when both projects launched. This is a good thing.
> once you see it, you'll realize there's no point to traditional javascript runtimes in serving applications - only for build processes (eg bundling) and scripting.
I suspect he's come to the conclusion that the runtimes are now just a commodified build system that's been dialed in already, and the layer where celld sits is where the next unvalidated opportunities are
> a genuinely good tool that enriches your thinking
A smartphone is also a genuinely good all-around tool. Even social media is a genuinely good tool for connecting people.
Yet, I feel like we've been overly optimistic about the impact of said tools on us and our societies in the past two decades.
Smartphones are so good, in fact, in some societies, half of us are addicted to them. Billions of people world-wide.
I ask myself: Will LLMs enrich my thinking in the long run, or will they ruin it?
And what about most people? Will half of us outsource most of our thinking in a decade from now?
Given the speed and global scale that we're running these experiments with, it's fair, I think, to be a bit sceptical of the conclusion that, in the long run, LLMs will enrich our thinking.
I agree with this. Tools are good, betting the farm on a single tool is bad.
Example, cars are good. Betting the farm on cars to the detriment of bikes, buses, and trains is clearly bad. The tool of an llm is clearly handy. Betting trillions of dollars and linking the future of the nation and globe to this tool is clearly bad.
Yes instead of investing everything in AI the USA should invest in electric versions of their vehicles and in trains that can safely carry them because of their lack of range.
There's a saying that the intelligence of an average prehistoric cave man should be, in general, higher than a modern day human simply because the lack of technology required stone age humans to be far more intelligent then we are today. Now you can survive by working as a clerk in McDs, but in the stone age you needed to be on your toes and smart af.
LLMs are just continuing the trend humanity has long been traveling down.
> There's a saying that the intelligence of an average prehistoric cave man should be, in general, higher than a modern day human simply because the lack of technology required stone age humans to be far more intelligent then we are today. Now you can survive by working as a clerk in McDs, but in the stone age you needed to be on your toes and smart af.
This is a funny twist on the glorification of the past.
Modern humans have been getting smarter even over the relatively short time periods that we’ve been measuring.
Modern day humans still can and do survive in the wild if they so desire. It’s not some lost intelligence that was only achievable by past ancient humans.
Flynn effect is just a trend for the past century or so and it's an international measure. For the past decade there's been a trend for the US exclusively that is not aligned with the flynn effect.
No, the CHLCA (Chimpanzee–Human Last Common Ancestor) would be smarter than humans. It could be that chimpanzee intelligence declined faster than human intelligence. Unlikely, but I want to clarify that we did not evolve from chimpanzees. We share a common ancestor.
So you're claim is prehistoric humans are stupider? Also unsubstantiated. And insulting to prehistoric humans. That kind of behavior isn't allowed on HN. Don't disparage a group.
"Flynn effect" claimed that intelligence has been increasing over time. At least we can sort of measure things in the modern era, while objectively assessing the intelligence of the long-dead is turning into skull-measuring territory.
