6 ms·

"fs" unpublished and restored

23 points by azylman 10y ago

thesmallestcat 10y ago
This is... interesting? Based on the description, an apology is unnecessary. Users who would be affected by this are probably too busy avoiding asphyxiation by plastic bag to notice.
- sctb 10y ago
  Insults like this are not OK on Hacker News. We ask that you comment civilly and substantively, or just not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
breakingcups 10y ago
I love the Node.JS ecosystem for the entertainment it brings to my life.
hyperbovine 10y ago
What a farce. Remind me again why this is killing Django and Rails for mindshare? (I'm serious, somebody please remind me.)
- rch 10y ago
  Node certainly has nontrivial mindshare, but I don't get the impression that is 'killing' other platforms.
- thesmallestcat 10y ago
  What is the farce? That packages can be unpublished? PyPI allows this. So does RubyGems.
  - tedmiston 10y ago
    That people have depended on a meaningless package, presumably unintentionally.
- micaksica 10y ago
  Because for a good chunk of the "web developer" or "web programmer" community, Node.js leverages the HTML/CSS/JS skillset they already have honed writing WordPress plugins and themes. It's easier to get adoption of your platform when it's a syntax one-trick-pony mom and pop "website design" companies understand, because now with some tutorials they can say that they, too, can write server side code.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - atoko 10y ago
    Ssh it's ok. None of us will take your place as a "real programmer" :)
  - nilliams 10y ago
    Forgive me for a blunt reply to your snarky comment, but this is ignorant hyperbole, and I'm surprised you got away with it on HN. I've never written 'WordPress plugins and themes'. I've worked in C, Java, PHP, Python, Ruby. Yet I gravitate to Node for backends because it makes sense for many reasons over alternative platforms that are still playing catch-up in terms of practical solutions. One example: Node had solid websockets solutions from close to day one. Several years later, Django just added 'channels' to its org. Rails just added 'action cable'. Both feel very immature. Also Python and Ruby are slow as hell compared to Node.
- nilliams 10y ago
  >> Remind me again why this is killing Django and Rails for mindshare Staying specific to package managers (which the article is about), Python's Pip doesn't have a dependency resolver [0] and Python packaging is miserable without using virtualenvs, which is frustrating overhead. Also the setup.py situation is a hot, unstandardised mess. As far as Ruby goes, (I don't have as much experience here, but ...) Rubygems seems hella slow, and the require story sucks compared to npm. Do I have to require 'rubygems'?, should I require_relative? In my book npm has both beat for 'is fast' and 'just works'. [0] https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/988 https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/988
  - stouset 10y ago
    > Do I have to require 'rubygems'? No. Never. Your code should not expect/require a particular dependency manager. > should I require_relative? This has nothing to do with package management, and the answer is again, "no, never" if you're trying to require a gem. This is to require files from within your own projects.
    - nilliams 10y ago
      > Do I have to require 'rubygems'? >> No. Never. Your code should not expect/require a particular dependency manager But there's loads of code out there that does that. So the answer isn't clear. > should I require_relative? >> This has nothing to do with package management, [...] It's to do with the interplay between what you install via package management and what you require. In Node you require a package by the same name as you install it, and there's one `require()`, end of story. In Ruby, it's less clear. That's what I meant. If you want a further example: Why do I `gem install activesupport`, but `require 'active_support'`?
elmigranto 10y ago
I'm not sure why publishing modules with the same name as core ones is even allowed. I get that it probably won't be possible to remove stuff like `fs`, `console`, `vm` and others, but maybe worth adding a policy for preventing this in the future. You probably won't even be able to `require` them without some fancy tricks in newer node versions: https://nodejs.org/api/modules.html#modules_all_together https://nodejs.org/api/modules.html#modules_all_together
- thesmallestcat 10y ago
  What does that accomplish? There's an "http" package on PyPI and Py3k adds an "http" package to the standard library. This does not seem meaningful. As I suggested in my downvoted comment, if you're doing `pip install os`, or `npm install --save fs`, your problems are external to the tools you've chosen.
  - elmigranto 10y ago
    Why don't people just stop making mistakes, right? The tool rejecting to do obviously wrong thing is always nice to have. No matter how trivial the mistake might seem to you.
vorotato 10y ago
this article is kinda old, yesterday's news tomorrow?

23 points by azylman 10y ago

This is... interesting? Based on the description, an apology is unnecessary. Users who would be affected by this are probably too busy avoiding asphyxiation by plastic bag to notice.

sctb 10y ago
Insults like this are not OK on Hacker News. We ask that you comment civilly and substantively, or just not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

breakingcups 10y ago

I love the Node.JS ecosystem for the entertainment it brings to my life.

hyperbovine 10y ago

What a farce. Remind me again why this is killing Django and Rails for mindshare? (I'm serious, somebody please remind me.)

rch 10y ago
Node certainly has nontrivial mindshare, but I don't get the impression that is 'killing' other platforms.
thesmallestcat 10y ago
What is the farce? That packages can be unpublished? PyPI allows this. So does RubyGems.
- tedmiston 10y ago
  That people have depended on a meaningless package, presumably unintentionally.
micaksica 10y ago
Because for a good chunk of the "web developer" or "web programmer" community, Node.js leverages the HTML/CSS/JS skillset they already have honed writing WordPress plugins and themes. It's easier to get adoption of your platform when it's a syntax one-trick-pony mom and pop "website design" companies understand, because now with some tutorials they can say that they, too, can write server side code.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- atoko 10y ago
  Ssh it's ok. None of us will take your place as a "real programmer" :)
- nilliams 10y ago
  Forgive me for a blunt reply to your snarky comment, but this is ignorant hyperbole, and I'm surprised you got away with it on HN. I've never written 'WordPress plugins and themes'. I've worked in C, Java, PHP, Python, Ruby. Yet I gravitate to Node for backends because it makes sense for many reasons over alternative platforms that are still playing catch-up in terms of practical solutions. One example: Node had solid websockets solutions from close to day one. Several years later, Django just added 'channels' to its org. Rails just added 'action cable'. Both feel very immature. Also Python and Ruby are slow as hell compared to Node.
nilliams 10y ago
>> Remind me again why this is killing Django and Rails for mindshare Staying specific to package managers (which the article is about), Python's Pip doesn't have a dependency resolver [0] and Python packaging is miserable without using virtualenvs, which is frustrating overhead. Also the setup.py situation is a hot, unstandardised mess. As far as Ruby goes, (I don't have as much experience here, but ...) Rubygems seems hella slow, and the require story sucks compared to npm. Do I have to require 'rubygems'?, should I require_relative? In my book npm has both beat for 'is fast' and 'just works'. [0] https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/988 https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/988
- stouset 10y ago
  > Do I have to require 'rubygems'? No. Never. Your code should not expect/require a particular dependency manager. > should I require_relative? This has nothing to do with package management, and the answer is again, "no, never" if you're trying to require a gem. This is to require files from within your own projects.
  - nilliams 10y ago
    > Do I have to require 'rubygems'? >> No. Never. Your code should not expect/require a particular dependency manager But there's loads of code out there that does that. So the answer isn't clear. > should I require_relative? >> This has nothing to do with package management, [...] It's to do with the interplay between what you install via package management and what you require. In Node you require a package by the same name as you install it, and there's one `require()`, end of story. In Ruby, it's less clear. That's what I meant. If you want a further example: Why do I `gem install activesupport`, but `require 'active_support'`?

elmigranto 10y ago

I'm not sure why publishing modules with the same name as core ones is even allowed. I get that it probably won't be possible to remove stuff like `fs`, `console`, `vm` and others, but maybe worth adding a policy for preventing this in the future. You probably won't even be able to `require` them without some fancy tricks in newer node versions: https://nodejs.org/api/modules.html#modules_all_together https://nodejs.org/api/modules.html#modules_all_together

thesmallestcat 10y ago
What does that accomplish? There's an "http" package on PyPI and Py3k adds an "http" package to the standard library. This does not seem meaningful. As I suggested in my downvoted comment, if you're doing `pip install os`, or `npm install --save fs`, your problems are external to the tools you've chosen.
- elmigranto 10y ago
  Why don't people just stop making mistakes, right? The tool rejecting to do obviously wrong thing is always nice to have. No matter how trivial the mistake might seem to you.

vorotato 10y ago

this article is kinda old, yesterday's news tomorrow?