NodeJS Runtime for Chrome
github.com
github.com
1) How much effort the originator put in to defining the product.
2) How competent the originator appears to be (lack of technical competence can be offset by willingness to research and learn on one's own, as well as good quality presentation).
3) How well a project aligns with the developer's own interest.
By the numbers:
1) This is a bare minimum effort. No developer who looks at this project will come away with the impression that you're serious about this, because you've done 10 minutes worth of work.
2) You have a Github account, so that means you're probably a developer as well, so you get points for technical knowledge. The README.md is well formatted and presents a pretty clear end-goal, so you're in good shape here.
3) I think a lot of developers would find this project interesting. Node.js is hot right now, so there is a lot of interest, even if a Node runtime for a web browser isn't entirely pragmatic, it is at least interesting.
So based on the responses here, it looks like you're getting hammered over the first criteria. Unfortunately, that's probably the most important one. No one wants to jump on board a project where the project originator isn't vested. There's very little keeping you from walking away from this as soon as things get rolling, then your name is on the repo and everyone who has done the work is left to languish in the background. "Credit" is a significant motivating factor in open source development.
Put some work in, then resubmit. I'm willing to bet you'd get a much better response.
Yes I agree with you. But It's a random idea I got while watching a video by Google which says Build NodeJS apps on Chrome. (But it does nothing rather than using Browserify)
I really don't need people to fork and send me pull requests. And I probably not going to build any chrome apps in near future.
Guys, It just a random idea and I used Github repo to show it. That's it.
The things I found confusing is why it's a good idea, and what stage of development the idea is at.
The text at the bottom doesn't make much sense: "Yes. it is not not there yet. But this is how it should be."
Double negative and ambiguous context to "this is how it should be". Is that, "it's not there and this is how it should be". Or, "If it were to be developed, this is how it should be".
>"it's not there and this is how it should be"
This seems okay for me. Will add it now.
4) What are the potential rewards?
Assuming a magical node.js script existed, the backend resources needed are immense, with no up-front profit. The http server mentioned needs to be hosted somewhere, and that somewhere has to be known by the user so he can tell his friends to go to some.domain.com:1773/instance.
Also, the overhead of the latency would negate the usefulness of running any code on the client. In those 30 ms that it takes to tell the client a request has come in, the server could already have responded. This hammers the NIC for little gain.
Sure, it's a cool idea, but it's not going to net any real profit (unless you can convince some VCs to ignore logic and give $$ based on "cool").
I'd rather see a simple node instance hoster, where you can upload code and have it run publicly:
https://github.com/joyent/node/wiki/Node-Hosting
If I wanted the code to run on the client, I'd also like to see a kind of folding@home that distributes data sets to clients. That idea has real potential for profit, and doesn't require nearly the resource investment of node.js running in a browser.
However, for a "cool" side-project with no intent for profit, I agree, improving 1) will drastically increase hobbyist interest. Hobbyists have their own ideas as well.
> If you are a NodeJS/Chrome developer and If you love the idea, Try to work on this :)
"Hey, I'm the CEO of a company that I just made up, and I have this billion-dollar business idea -- I just need someone to code it up! We can go in 90/10 on this idea: I dream up the ideas, and you write the code for them. I get 90% since I'm the one coming up with the ideas, and if you don't want to get in we can find another dev to take part in this ground-breaking project!"
rolleyes
I agree, however, that some things (like web servers) don't belong in a browser. Browsers can do a lot of things, but there are definitely some things they should not do.
You guys took one of my suggestion(ease of use) and mix match few great tools with your awesome talent and build something really useful.
This is what I exactly thought. And I won :) (and most of JS lovers too).
WRITEME.mdBut yeah, I hope the "unfulfilled" github repo doesn't become a trend.