4 ms·

Could you point out a few things in the blog that made it sound that way to you? It states many times it was added for backwards compatibility. Even at the bo

Could you point out a few things in the blog that made it sound that way to you? It states many times it was added for backwards compatibility. Even at the bottom of TFA they annotate the ideal solution (which will be implemented soon) is to use import maps instead of package.json, the same format the browser uses, which is in line with Deno's main goals.

tsimionescu 4y ago
You're ignoring the fact that, originally, deno wanted to eschew the concept of an import map entirely. They weren't against the format of package.json itself, or even against the fact that it's not a web standard. They were against the idea of having to specify imports sepeartely from your code, and against the idea of bundling multiple files into a concept of a module. Fast forward a few years, and they are now adding these two things natively to deno, just as the web ecosystem did. Turns out, Node was right to have modules and an import file all along, and at worst there were some minor implementation quibbles to argue about.
- MrOwnPut 4y ago
  Personally I don't really care about the faux drama. I'm glad I can use direct url imports in simple Deno scripts. I also see the need for import maps for larger projects. I do think node_modules is an abomination and glad I don't have to deal with them anymore. I prefer writing everything that works in Deno and the browser, not Node specific APIs. I like the tech, I don't really care about the drama, and I doubt the Ryan does either lol.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    That's perfectly fair, but then there's no need to jump into a thread about how a project reversed course on a major point it started with by claiming that it hasn't.
    - MrOwnPut 4y ago
      I disagreed with the GPs premise and I commented my viewpoint. This is how a forum works. I disagree with how you summed it up, but I don't really care to continue. It's getting too dramatic and not really about the tech at this point.

tsimionescu 4y ago

You're ignoring the fact that, originally, deno wanted to eschew the concept of an import map entirely. They weren't against the format of package.json itself, or even against the fact that it's not a web standard. They were against the idea of having to specify imports sepeartely from your code, and against the idea of bundling multiple files into a concept of a module. Fast forward a few years, and they are now adding these two things natively to deno, just as the web ecosystem did. Turns out, Node was right to have modules and an import file all along, and at worst there were some minor implementation quibbles to argue about.

MrOwnPut 4y ago
Personally I don't really care about the faux drama. I'm glad I can use direct url imports in simple Deno scripts. I also see the need for import maps for larger projects. I do think node_modules is an abomination and glad I don't have to deal with them anymore. I prefer writing everything that works in Deno and the browser, not Node specific APIs. I like the tech, I don't really care about the drama, and I doubt the Ryan does either lol.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  That's perfectly fair, but then there's no need to jump into a thread about how a project reversed course on a major point it started with by claiming that it hasn't.
  - MrOwnPut 4y ago
    I disagreed with the GPs premise and I commented my viewpoint. This is how a forum works. I disagree with how you summed it up, but I don't really care to continue. It's getting too dramatic and not really about the tech at this point.