3 ms·
> its founders needed to justify achieving funding by being developer-famous I agree here, but > Let's say a company were to adopt this tech over Node, well,
by alephnan 4y ago
> its founders needed to justify achieving funding by being developer-famous
I agree here, but
> Let's say a company were to adopt this tech over Node, well, it seems like it would be slightly better, but probably not much of a game-changer.
If I'm starting a new project, Deno will be compelling if it means zero configuration with sufficiently sane defaults. It's like Rails vs Ruby. With Node.JS, you can pick and choose then configure things like TypeScript, but then you have to manage configuration files for TypeScript, linting, and all these things not relevant to the app code.
- emilsedgh 4y agoWhat makes node _fantastic_ is actually a huge ecosystem of packages, tooling, cloud providers, talent pool, shared knowledge. etc. There's a massive network effect here. As far as I'm concerned, as of right now Deno is _not_ better that node due to reasons above. It has the potential to be, and I wish the authors massive success and root for them. But I'm not gonna start a project on Deno due to lack of a proper ecosystem yet.
- paulgb 4y agoAt this point I’d say node’s ecosystem of packages is an advantage, but its ecosystem of tooling is a disadvantage. It’s not node’s fault, but Javascript package management wasn’t a thing when it started out, and now we are still haunted by the legacy approaches of the past. I’ve wasted too many hours mucking with babel/webpack/tsconfig files just to get some stupid code to run. If there’s any area of modern software development that could benefit from a clean slate like Deno is attempting, it’s JS development.