4 ms·

I think this is the motivation behind requiring an npm: prefix. It is a way to virtue signal for devs who buy into the deno goals to push for migrating to non-“

by lukevp 4y ago

I think this is the motivation behind requiring an npm: prefix. It is a way to virtue signal for devs who buy into the deno goals to push for migrating to non-“legacy” packages. If you see an npm: prefix in a deps.ts file you can consider it tech debt. And potentially set up a lint rule to enforce it in the future. If they had not put an explicit reference in the source (passed through the packages transparently or kept a server side list of packages on npm) then it wouldn’t be colocated with the source and the PR processes. I think this was a good move overall.

brundolf 4y ago
It's not just a "virtue signal"; those packages will have to go through some special (and pretty aggressive) transpiling in order to work. This wasn't just flipping a switch from the Deno team
- bartlomieju 4y ago
  That's not really what's happening behind the scenes. We are consuming sources as they are provided in npm using "compat layer" that is part of Deno's standard library. We had to provide special module resolution, but besides polyfill for built-in Node APIs, it works very similar to how Node consumes these packages.
  - brundolf 4y ago
    Huh I didn't know about compatibility mode; sounds like a lot of the work had already been done then
    - bartlomieju 4y ago
      Yes, this effort started years ago and was ramped up significantly in recent months.