3 ms·
I would guess that many devs' preference would be for a larger standard library, but not a kitchen sink. Personally, I'd be happy with a larger suite of utilit
by joshkel 1mo ago
I would guess that many devs' preference would be for a larger standard library, but not a kitchen sink.
Personally, I'd be happy with a larger suite of utility functions (say, most of Lodash / es-toolkit - remove the need for left-pad silliness), probably SQLite bindings (having a good persistence layer is great, it's perhaps the most robust and most widely deployed software on the planet), but not YAML (complex, security concerns, parser differences) or image handling (again, security concerns).
Node.js is, IMO, actually pretty good these days; they're regularly adding useful built-in tools that remove the need for add-on packages. (The ecosystem is so big that getting those updates to filter out is hard.)
- spankalee 1mo agoSQLite bindings should absolutely not belong in a JS "standard library". SQLite is a project that most JS environments won't have enbedded.
- mort96 1mo agoThere should be a space between "in the standard library" and "in a library written by some random person with a github account". An sqlite driver does not need to be bundled by the runtime, but it would be pretty great if there was an official sqlite driver library developed and supported by the node.js project but distributed through NPM.