4 ms·

Its very interesting to me the level of skepticism that is being shown towards Deno. Whether or not you agree with the approach, you have to agree with the und

by jppope 6y ago

Its very interesting to me the level of skepticism that is being shown towards Deno. Whether or not you agree with the approach, you have to agree with the underlying problems that Deno is trying to solve. Furthermore I agree with the article in that there is a paradigm shift here, which should be given a chance. I for one am happy about the url imports for a variety of reasons, but top on my list is that it will (in theory) reduce the total amount of code people are using from other sources, and (in theory) will make developers more aware of what they do choose to import. All of this should reduce bloat and award open source maintainers that solve novel problems in a clear & concise way.

emerongi 6y ago
There are better ways to reduce bloat. Gitlab can do web asset analysis and throw warning signs when your JS file goes over a certain size. Of course, in server-side applications the use-case would be different, but the idea remains the same: do not depend on developers doing the right thing every single day, depend on an automated system if something like this is crucial to you. The URL import completely throws away all the goodies that great package managers have. Being able to manage sub-dependency versions is a big one. I do not understand how people are OK with throwing those away. Either they have never encountered issues that stem from dependencies or they just don't care. Deno could technically add layers on top that make dependency management easier, but then we are back to NPM.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
fastball 6y ago
It's very interesting to me the level of enthusiasm being shown towards Deno. It is clearly being embraced more than it has shown its worth.
jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
> Whether or not you agree with the approach, you have to agree with the underlying problems that Deno is trying to solve. Perhaps, but that does not mean Deno is the solution. > there is a paradigm shift here, which should be given a chance. Why? If I come up with a novel approach for something, I am the one that has to show it works. > I for one am happy about the url imports for a variety of reasons, but top on my list is that it will (in theory) reduce the total amount of code people are using from other sources I'd say it is the other way around. It encourages an even crazier approach to dependencies that the NPM mess already is.
specialist 6y ago
I recently did a bunch of nodejs work. Ryan Dahl is the biggest reason I'm interested in deno. His post mortem for nodejs is spot on. He's intellectually honest, learns from experience. If he was a star ship captain (Sisko), I'd follow him into a black hole. I felt the same way about Redis. But then I read antirez's writings and saw his source code. Redis is exactly what it says it is. And I love that. PS- Took me forever to realize "deno" is an anagram of "node".

by jppope 6y ago

emerongi 6y ago

There are better ways to reduce bloat. Gitlab can do web asset analysis and throw warning signs when your JS file goes over a certain size. Of course, in server-side applications the use-case would be different, but the idea remains the same: do not depend on developers doing the right thing every single day, depend on an automated system if something like this is crucial to you. The URL import completely throws away all the goodies that great package managers have. Being able to manage sub-dependency versions is a big one. I do not understand how people are OK with throwing those away. Either they have never encountered issues that stem from dependencies or they just don't care. Deno could technically add layers on top that make dependency management easier, but then we are back to NPM.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

fastball 6y ago

It's very interesting to me the level of enthusiasm being shown towards Deno. It is clearly being embraced more than it has shown its worth.

jfkebwjsbx 6y ago

> Whether or not you agree with the approach, you have to agree with the underlying problems that Deno is trying to solve. Perhaps, but that does not mean Deno is the solution. > there is a paradigm shift here, which should be given a chance. Why? If I come up with a novel approach for something, I am the one that has to show it works. > I for one am happy about the url imports for a variety of reasons, but top on my list is that it will (in theory) reduce the total amount of code people are using from other sources I'd say it is the other way around. It encourages an even crazier approach to dependencies that the NPM mess already is.

specialist 6y ago

I recently did a bunch of nodejs work. Ryan Dahl is the biggest reason I'm interested in deno. His post mortem for nodejs is spot on. He's intellectually honest, learns from experience. If he was a star ship captain (Sisko), I'd follow him into a black hole. I felt the same way about Redis. But then I read antirez's writings and saw his source code. Redis is exactly what it says it is. And I love that. PS- Took me forever to realize "deno" is an anagram of "node".