4 ms·

I think this position is also one of the reasons it gained attention. Batteries included is a popular and chosen route for many. Setting up typescript can be h

I think this position is also one of the reasons it gained attention. Batteries included is a popular and chosen route for many. Setting up typescript can be hard. Same goes for webpack, s3, postgres, jest and more. I also find the simplified file and stream access quite interesting. Lets wait and see how a distributed deployment provider turns out.

nsonha 2y ago
nothing wrong with that, but why putting it on a global object instead of a built-in module. Better yet, that module may be publishable on jsr/npm
viraptor 2y ago
> Setting up typescript can be hard. Node just enabled it by default. You still need the dev dependency for manual compilation and checks, but at runtime it should "just work". https://nodejs.org/en/blog/release/v23.6.0 https://nodejs.org/en/blog/release/v23.6.0
- re-thc 2y ago
  > but at runtime it should "just work" Maybe when it doesn't use WASM and there's proper integration. Otherwise it's just like npm and people still need to look for alternatives.
- Shacklz 2y ago
  As enthusiastic as I am about node's typescript-support, calling it "just works" is a bit of a stretch. Not entirely sure if it's still the case anymore on the latest versions but last I checked it was required to use `.ts`-suffixes for all the imports, something a standard typescript project will hardly ever have and needs to be specifically configured to be considered valid syntax (allowImportingTsExtensions:true). But yeah, there's progress, and once this gets solid traction (which I'm sure it will) it might finally be the last drop in the bucket to convince TC39 to stop being so antagonistic to having some notion of type-support directly in Javascript.
homebrewer 2y ago
Which means they did not learn from Python's mistakes. You need to look further than the next couple of years. For some reason during the past 10 years or so it has become fashionable to throw away everything the industry has learned in decades prior and start anew, repeating the same mistakes. We'll never turn into proper engineering with such attitude. https://lwn.net/Articles/776239 https://lwn.net/Articles/776239 https://lwn.net/Articles/888043 https://lwn.net/Articles/888043 https://lwn.net/Articles/790677 https://lwn.net/Articles/790677
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- e3bc54b2 2y ago
  I despise Python's tooling and never touch it willingly. That said, Python's 'mistake' also made it one of the most used languages ever. For nearly 2 decades, you could just type `python` in terminal and get rolling, and that was invaluable. The only real 'mistake' that Python did was breaking backwards compatibility so spectacularly that single greatest feature was rendered useless.
  - Yajirobe 2y ago
    > single greatest feature was rendered useless. Which feature are you referring to?
    - e3bc54b2 2y ago
      being able to type `python` and start writing a program that would work nearly everywhere. With compatibility break there was a decade of confusion, even the simplest print statement wouldn't work. I understand there were real reasons to do all that, but it did cause damage. Steve Yegge put it better than I can[0]: > the thing is, every single developer has choices. And if you make them rewrite their code enough times, some of those other choices are going to start looking mighty appealing. They’re not your hostages, as much as you’d like them to be. They are your guests. Python is still a very popular programming language, to be sure — but golly did Python 3(000) create a huge mess for themselves, their communities, and the users of their communities’ software — one that has been a train-wreck in progress for fifteen years and is still kicking. > How much Python software was rewritten in Go (or Ruby, or some other alternative) because of that backwards incompatibility? How much new software was written in something other than Python, which might have been written in Python if Guido hadn’t burned everyone’s house down? It’s hard to say, but I can tell you, it hasn’t been good for Python. It’s a huge mess and everyone is miserable. [0] https://steve-yegge.medium.com/dear-google-cloud-your-deprecation-policy-is-killing-you-ee7525dc05dc https://steve-yegge.medium.com/dear-google-cloud-your-deprec...

nsonha 2y ago

nothing wrong with that, but why putting it on a global object instead of a built-in module. Better yet, that module may be publishable on jsr/npm

viraptor 2y ago

> Setting up typescript can be hard. Node just enabled it by default. You still need the dev dependency for manual compilation and checks, but at runtime it should "just work". https://nodejs.org/en/blog/release/v23.6.0 https://nodejs.org/en/blog/release/v23.6.0

re-thc 2y ago
> but at runtime it should "just work" Maybe when it doesn't use WASM and there's proper integration. Otherwise it's just like npm and people still need to look for alternatives.
Shacklz 2y ago
As enthusiastic as I am about node's typescript-support, calling it "just works" is a bit of a stretch. Not entirely sure if it's still the case anymore on the latest versions but last I checked it was required to use `.ts`-suffixes for all the imports, something a standard typescript project will hardly ever have and needs to be specifically configured to be considered valid syntax (allowImportingTsExtensions:true). But yeah, there's progress, and once this gets solid traction (which I'm sure it will) it might finally be the last drop in the bucket to convince TC39 to stop being so antagonistic to having some notion of type-support directly in Javascript.

homebrewer 2y ago

Which means they did not learn from Python's mistakes. You need to look further than the next couple of years. For some reason during the past 10 years or so it has become fashionable to throw away everything the industry has learned in decades prior and start anew, repeating the same mistakes. We'll never turn into proper engineering with such attitude. https://lwn.net/Articles/776239 https://lwn.net/Articles/776239 https://lwn.net/Articles/888043 https://lwn.net/Articles/888043 https://lwn.net/Articles/790677 https://lwn.net/Articles/790677

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
e3bc54b2 2y ago
I despise Python's tooling and never touch it willingly. That said, Python's 'mistake' also made it one of the most used languages ever. For nearly 2 decades, you could just type `python` in terminal and get rolling, and that was invaluable. The only real 'mistake' that Python did was breaking backwards compatibility so spectacularly that single greatest feature was rendered useless.
- Yajirobe 2y ago
  > single greatest feature was rendered useless. Which feature are you referring to?
  - e3bc54b2 2y ago
    being able to type `python` and start writing a program that would work nearly everywhere. With compatibility break there was a decade of confusion, even the simplest print statement wouldn't work. I understand there were real reasons to do all that, but it did cause damage. Steve Yegge put it better than I can[0]: > the thing is, every single developer has choices. And if you make them rewrite their code enough times, some of those other choices are going to start looking mighty appealing. They’re not your hostages, as much as you’d like them to be. They are your guests. Python is still a very popular programming language, to be sure — but golly did Python 3(000) create a huge mess for themselves, their communities, and the users of their communities’ software — one that has been a train-wreck in progress for fifteen years and is still kicking. > How much Python software was rewritten in Go (or Ruby, or some other alternative) because of that backwards incompatibility? How much new software was written in something other than Python, which might have been written in Python if Guido hadn’t burned everyone’s house down? It’s hard to say, but I can tell you, it hasn’t been good for Python. It’s a huge mess and everyone is miserable. [0] https://steve-yegge.medium.com/dear-google-cloud-your-deprecation-policy-is-killing-you-ee7525dc05dc https://steve-yegge.medium.com/dear-google-cloud-your-deprec...