3 ms·

I don't know of any offical docs or anything, but I'd imagine it's because it would be a pretty big breaking change. (before babel moved to scoped packages, it

I don't know of any offical docs or anything, but I'd imagine it's because it would be a pretty big breaking change. (before babel moved to scoped packages, it would be jarring to see `babel-core` unscoped, but `@babel/babel-plugin-thing` as scoped because it was forced. I also think there is still some roughness around "transferring" scoped packages (what happens when another user takes over a package I authored? does it change to `@OtherUser/coolThing` or does it stay under `@Klathmon/coolThing` forever? I wouldn't like that second one.) What I would like to see is all new unscoped packages being able to be installed/required by their scoped version by default. So if I create a package `coolThing` in npm entirely unscoped, it would be installable by doing `npm -i @Klathmon/coolThing` and by doing `npm -i coolThing` That would let many of us to use the benefits of scoped packages without the package authors having to do anything. And it would be a big step toward going completely scoped at some point in the future.

kuschku 9y ago
All the other package managers have solved that. Docker and go use URLs/paths for scoping, everything is scoped. Java/Scala/Kotlin/XText/etc use reversed domains as scope. And so on.
- Klathmon 9y ago
  Yes, but many of them started that way, they didn't have to go through the headache of transferring to that format. And even ecosystems that did go through that trouble, they weren't nearly at the scale that npm is. We can talk about how awful of an idea it was for npm to start the way they did all we want, but the reality is that they are in the position of unscoped packages being the "default" right now, and I'd love for them to get away from them in a safe manner.
DanHulton 9y ago
All new packages must be scoped. Existing packages can - and shoudl - be aliased by the owner to a scoped package. Everyone's existing code continues to work, while all new code is safe. Doesn't seem especially tricky.
- Klathmon 9y ago
  I agree, but I'm just guessing. I have a feeling that if there weren't any downsides, it would have been done by now.
  - vog 9y ago
    My feeling ist that the downside basically boils down to: Lots of work, and having to find volunteers implementing that.

kuschku 9y ago

All the other package managers have solved that. Docker and go use URLs/paths for scoping, everything is scoped. Java/Scala/Kotlin/XText/etc use reversed domains as scope. And so on.

Klathmon 9y ago
Yes, but many of them started that way, they didn't have to go through the headache of transferring to that format. And even ecosystems that did go through that trouble, they weren't nearly at the scale that npm is. We can talk about how awful of an idea it was for npm to start the way they did all we want, but the reality is that they are in the position of unscoped packages being the "default" right now, and I'd love for them to get away from them in a safe manner.

DanHulton 9y ago

All new packages must be scoped. Existing packages can - and shoudl - be aliased by the owner to a scoped package. Everyone's existing code continues to work, while all new code is safe. Doesn't seem especially tricky.

Klathmon 9y ago
I agree, but I'm just guessing. I have a feeling that if there weren't any downsides, it would have been done by now.
- vog 9y ago
  My feeling ist that the downside basically boils down to: Lots of work, and having to find volunteers implementing that.