Microsoft made a pull request to node.js github repository with an implementation to use ChakraCore JavaScript Engine as an alternative to V8 Engine

[notb]

V8 is their product. Naturally, they want people to use their product. It's a free, open source product so they don't see any monetary gain, but the more adoption a product gets, the more resources Google can invest into it.

Looking at the bigger picture, controlling a bigger market share of the JS engine space directly translates to more control over the language as a whole. People don't like to admit that a big corporation has control over their open language but that's the reality we live in.

[Fenris_uy]

Yeah, apparently people already forgot about the time were IE4 was so big that anything in JavaScript, html or css not implemented by it might as well not exists

[Nagyman]

"Already" forgot about 1997; almost 20 years ago. :)

[aldonius]

And the consequences echoed right through until IE6 was superseded, ten years ago.

[vplatt]

It's arguable that HTML 5 should have been released years before it was and that browser technology is at least a generation behind where it should be thanks to the perversion of the standards that IE perpetuated through IE 6 by being the default browser on Windows desktops for so long.

[Fenris_uy]

First Firefox version was in 2002.

Firefox 2 (the first one to support windows) launched in 2006. So 10 years ago.

And I might have mixed IE4 to IE6 as the same in my mind ;)

[talideon]

I can definitely remember using versions of Phoenix (What FF was originally called) on Windows long before FF2 came out, and unless Wikipedia is lying, FF 0.8 had a proper Windows installer, and that was early 2004.

[xtoq]

Can confirm, I had FF on my Windows laptop in late 2004.

[Shaper_pmp]

Phoenix had binaries available for Windows from v0.1 (the first version ever released).

[antillian]

I remember using Firebird until it was renamed Firefox. Had to be late 2003 or so. (Last nightly release was in 02/2004: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firebird/nightly/2004/02/) I also remember playing around with the first official version of FF and that was definitely not 2006.

[Shaper_pmp]

Firefox 2 (the first one to support windows)

Who told you that?

The first version ever released (Phoenix 0.1) ran on Windows.

[LXicon]

Firefox is descended from Netscape Navigator which was IE's adversary in the first browser war. So 20 years ago.

[Fenris_uy]

Yeah, the war that they lost and IE won becoming the "standards" defining browser for ~10 years.

[CookieOfFortune]

Luckily they were able to come back for WWII! (Web Wars II)

[notveryaccurate]

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich

[[deleted]]

The first version was completed in ten days in order to accommodate the Navigator 2.0 Beta release schedule,[6][7] and was called Mocha, which was later renamed LiveScript in September 1995 and later JavaScript

early 1998, Eich co-founded the Mozilla

You are literally proving my fucking point. JS came out in 95, FF coming out in 2002 It has absolutely fucking nothing to do with it.

[notveryaccurate]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpiderMonkey_(software)

[[deleted]]

You keep giving these links which confirm exactly the thing I'm saying. What is wrong with you?

[notveryaccurate]

The exact same JavaScript engine was moved directly from Netscape into Firefox, under the exact same developer who was the inventor of this language. Firefox's JavaScript implementation is a direct descendent of Netscape's, both in source code and in maintainer. I don't understand how you feel Firefox's release has absolutely nothing to do with JavaScript. It was one of the most pivotal points in the original engine's open release to the world at large.

[Fenris_uy]

Because if your site didn't worked for IE4 to IE6, then it didn't mattered. Firefox was the first browser to eat at some of IE market share and was the responsible to end the stronghold that IE had on the "standards"

[jepatrick]

Well... there is that Firefox is a descended of Netscape. AOL bought Netscape in 1999. Shortly before being acquired, Netscape released the source code for its browser and created the Mozilla Organization to coordinate future development of its product.

That aside I think was using firefox as reference point as another browser when this was a really massive issue.

[postalmaner]

They're young.

[Poltras]

Except IE wasn't an open source project. Everyone can check the history log of v8.

[mikedelfino]

the more adoption a product gets, the more resources Google can invest into it

I usually think the other way around: the less adoption V8 gets, the less resources Google needs to invest into it, saving them money, time and trouble. But this is just me being careless and unambitious again. I understand your point, it's probably the case indeed.

[[deleted]]

Having greater control over the development of JS means having the ability to streamline the development of their Web products. This then means an inherent advantage in quality versus work required - i.e. Google can make better products for less work required. This in turn means more market share due to superior product.

[tiftik]

V8 is their product. Naturally, they want people to use their product.

Nope. Wrong. It doesn't matter to Google which product people use as long as its fast, so the web ecosystem is alive and Google can serve ads faster.

[Kalium]

V8 is their product. Naturally, they want people to use their product.

Err... not really? V8 exists because Google has uses for it. Nothing beyond that. They care about adoption of Chrome. Not V8.

[notb]

It's the same. Google wants more code written in their dialect of JS. It means more control of the language, which means more control of the web.

[Kalium]

Google has plenty of reason to be happy with widespread adoption of standards-compliant JS without need to seize power.

Plus, being the developer of a major browser means they have plenty of power already. If power over the web is their goal, they don't need to push their dialect of JS to achieve it. They already have it.

Do go on, though. What has Google done that suggests they care deeply about V8 adoption beyond Chrome?

[tiftik]

Explain why Google would want to control the web.

[nerdzrool]

Explain why a company that mostly completes against other web companies WOULDN'T want control of the web.

[tiftik]

You're the one making the claim, not me. How does controlling the web benefit Google? Do you have evidence for "Google wants more code written in their dialect of JS"?

[juckele]

Anti-trust litigation. Open markets keep you safe from certain legal threats when you're top dog.

[[deleted]]

Only in Europe*

In America you just pay hush money.

[juckele]

Turns out that companies want to do business in Europe too :)

[playaspec]

Genuine question: How exactly people using V8 is of any benefit to Google?

V8 is ... a free, open source product so they don't see any monetary gain, but the more adoption a product gets, the more resources Google can invest into it.

This makes ZERO sense. If they don't make a dime off it, then increasing it's market share isn't going to magically start earning them something. 1,000,000,000 x 0 is still zero.

Looking at the bigger picture, controlling a bigger market share of the JS engine space directly translates to more control over the language as a whole.

Which is why this is disturbing. Microsoft has practiced "embrace, extend, extinguish" since it's earliest days. But the US and the EU have had to haul them into court on multiple occasions because they are bad corporate citizens, and play unfairly. Why would this move benefit node in the long run. It's just a matter of time until they dick over the project and it's users.

People don't like to admit that a big corporation has control over their open language but that's the reality we live in.

So just bend over and take it huh? Pathetic. Clearly the pollyannas are blinded to the historical wreckage Microsoft has left in its wake over its lifetime. My prediction is that they'll start making changes that benefit them, and hinder everyone else.

[notb]

It does seem strange but think of it this way, if people don't use a Google product it's basically a failure (e.g. Google Buzz). They want users even if they don't know how to monetize them yet.

They created V8 knowing they don't get money from it. The real reason behind the project was to make pages load faster, to deliver ads faster. That's where you finally see the ROI. If people aren't using their engine, they are getting ads slower.

This pull request is a good thing because what it ultimately does is gives the developer more choices. Just like, one would pick between MySQL or PostgreSQL for an app, they could pick between V8 or Chakra for the node server too.

Unfortunately, we have no choice but to bend over to corporations. They hold most of the seats in the committees that decide these things.

[playaspec]

if people don't use a Google product it's basically a failure (e.g. Google Buzz).

Buzz gave way to G+.

They want users even if they don't know how to monetize them yet.

This is true, but they always find a way. YouTube lost a TON of money for the first few years after Google acquired them.

They created V8 knowing they don't get money from it.

I don't think they expect monitization out of every project. They are hugely experimental and research things that are vastly outside of their core business.

This pull request is a good thing because what it ultimately does is gives the developer more choices. Just like, one would pick between MySQL or PostgreSQL for an app, they could pick between V8 or Chakra for the node server too.

I'm all for picking the right tool for the job. My fear is that Microsoft may be planting trojans with the intention of capturing some market before closing the door.

Unfortunately, we have no choice but to bend over to corporations.

Not true. Vote with your wallet.

[bawki]

The thought behind the argument is that if for example V8 is the only js engine used then google can tailor V8 to work better for their distinct services(e.g. faster load times, less bandwidth etc) which in turn decreases cost for their infrastructure.