3 ms·
Just use JSR[0] and only deal with npm when a project forces you to do things backwards. Since JSR packages are available on npm, there's nothing lost. [0]http
by catapart 2y ago
Just use JSR[0] and only deal with npm when a project forces you to do things backwards. Since JSR packages are available on npm, there's nothing lost.
[0]https://jsr.io/ https://jsr.io/
- jmondi 2y agoI have mixed feelings about the JSR requirement for explicit typing. Other than that, it is pretty great!
- catapart 2y agoHm? This is news to me. As far as I know, you can just publish pure javascript. I know that it's going to give you a worse 'score' if you don't have types, and it may require explicit typing of TS (but, strictly, so does TS), but I wasn't aware that there was not any way to publish to JSR without types. I'll have to look in to that, thanks!
- FractalHQ 2y agoThis is the best feature imo. Never again will my time be drained by someone else’s failure to type their spaghetti.
- nox101 2y agojsr seems great! I hope they work out their kinks but I'm really glad someone is trying to push things forward.
- creesch 2y agoNeat to get to know JSR, but doesn't this have very little to do with the contents of the article you responding to? While I know NPM is in the title, the actually article is about module imports which JSR doesn't change.
- catapart 2y agoThe article is saying "this ecosystem should change because it doesn't do specific things that make sense for it to do". JSR says "here's a way to leave the original ecosystem alone, but have a better-fitting ecosystem that does the things you want". (not sure about the 'jsr doesn't change' bit? It literally requires ES modules, in lieu of common js modules). Seems pretty relevant, to me, but YMMV. I understand it's not a direct answer, but it seems as relevant as "here's typescript" to someone saying "we should add types to javascript".