> If you make a package manager, but the only function it has is text editing If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it's a duck. If it doesn't quack and

> If you make a package manager, but the only function it has is text editing If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it's a duck. If it doesn't quack and doesn't look like a duck, it's not a duck. So in your example, if npm just provides text editing, I'd call it a text editor, not package manager. If it manages packages, I'd call it a package manager. So this is judging things based on their functionality, rather than what they want to use it for. Don't think the intended purpose matters too much in what something is. It is what it is, it is not what it was aimed to be but what the current state of it is. And AFAIK, people _mostly_ use npm for managing packages, other use cases are not nearly as popular (like distributing assets).