4 ms·
I'm 100% in favor of being able to do more things with fewer dependencies, so yes. I think having watch, test, and fetch built in are great.
by christophilus 4y ago
I'm 100% in favor of being able to do more things with fewer dependencies, so yes. I think having watch, test, and fetch built in are great.
- llanowarelves 4y agoI agree. I am glad Node is getting there despite dragging its feet. The DX with all the package boilerplate is atrocious compared to what it could be. Even if Deno, Bun etc were to fizzle out, I am glad they exist to show the way and put pressure on Nodejs at bare minimum.
- satvikpendem 4y ago> Even if Deno, Bun etc were to fizzle out, I am glad they exist to show the way and put pressure on Nodejs at bare minimum. This is how I felt about io.js back in the day too, and about vim versus neovim; competitive pressure works.
- Etheryte 4y agoThis is a slight misnomer in my opinion. When those dependencies are bundled into Node you have fewer listed dependencies, yes, but you haven't actually reduced the amount of external code you rely on.
- christophilus 4y agoYou have a single vendor to worry about— like Microsoft when you use .NET, Google when you use Go, etc. You obviously will always have external dependencies unless you build everything from your own hardware up. But it’s clearly a win to vet and trust one vendor, and have one solid, trusted platform to build on vs pulling in literally thousands of dependencies from random vendors as is common in most JS stacks.
- Etheryte 4y agoThat's a fair point. Currently I'm not convinced all of this is the right direction for Node, but we'll see how it pans out. Node is already huge so I would much rather they pick their battles and do those features well, rather than try and be mediocre at everything.