5 ms·
I'm solidly in 'that' crowd. The is _so_ much churn and worthless changes in the JS ecosystem. AFAIK it's the only ecosystem that has this much churn, which pr
by SCHiM 6y ago
I'm solidly in 'that' crowd.
The is _so_ much churn and worthless changes in the JS ecosystem. AFAIK it's the only ecosystem that has this much churn, which proves that it's not necessary.
My best example of this is the fact that I can now no longer yarn install <package>. Instead, yarn informs me, the command is now yarn add <package>. For gods sake.
Every time I upgrade or build a project more than a week old I'm almost virtually guaranteed to have a deprecation warning somewhere in my stack, that's infuriating too.
- daniellarusso 6y agoIt pays well, at least, right?
- sixothree 6y agoI always hate explaining these kinds of issues to whomever is paying me. I always feel guilty when I have to log "4 hours debugging tooling". And it takes me out of my flow. I'm solving difficult problem and these sorts of things, constant and unpredictable, make that task harder.
- noahlange 6y agoFor what it's worth, "yarn add" has been the "correct" way to add new dependencies from the beginning. https://engineering.fb.com/web/yarn-a-new-package-manager-for-javascript/ https://engineering.fb.com/web/yarn-a-new-package-manager-fo...
- venatiodecorus 6y ago>AFAIK it's the only ecosystem that has this much churn, which proves that it's not necessary. ah its funny what people qualify as "proof" these days. Javascript is in the unique position of being the only language integrated into browsers, surely you recognize that this is a big factor in the ecosystem?
- coddle-hark 6y agoThat doesn't explain churn in the tooling though. This isn't some new, pre 1.0 ecosystem; node has been around for 11 years now.