The point I'm trying to make is: Gulp and Grunt exist, and have strong ecosystems. It's cool that this uses a swanky new ES6 feature. But is that really a big enough step up, that people should stop using what they're using and use this instead?
If it came with a set of modules for other packages so people could at the very least try the demo version before they buy into it, and it really is that much cleaner and more powerful, then I think people could really get behind it.
The trick to making a successful JS package nowadays is marketing, honestly.
Grunt existed when gulp was new, and it had a pretty strong ecosystem. Gulp was an alternate that solved the same problem in a different way, and it got pretty popular. Because of it, the next version of Grunt is totally different and uses ideas from Gulp.
I find it disappointing how some people have such an allergic reaction to others trying something new. If you don't like it, don't use it.
I don't think he's allergic to others trying something new, I think he's just saying that the most important information for them to provide when doing so is "how is my approach different to/better than the existing tools?"
Which is a valid point, IMO. When there already multiple widely-used tools that do X, marketing your new tool as "Does X!!!" isn't very compelling in itself.
If it came with a set of modules for other packages so people could at the very least try the demo version before they buy into it, and it really is that much cleaner and more powerful, then I think people could really get behind it.
The trick to making a successful JS package nowadays is marketing, honestly.