Sorry. That was uncharitable of me. You did not make a "just use X" claim. But your suggestion does elide the significant difficulties in doing as you suggest.

Sorry. That was uncharitable of me. You did not make a "just use X" claim. But your suggestion does elide the significant difficulties in doing as you suggest. It's an alternative that will lead to more frustration due to the tons of design decisions wrapped up in package.scripts. And asserting that because you can do this, package.json "doesn't need this section tbh" is misleading and a recipe for further frustration for people who listen to your advice. And yes, Deno not literally being Node is in fact its problem. I've shipped stuff using Deno--and I don't hate it, and I did use Makefiles--but yeah, that's the actual problem here. Node conventions are the ones everyone expects and every tool expects, and Deno does not have a unique selling point to it that makes using it more reasonable than just using Node.