3 ms·

Bad news. I've had a javascript library named Rome that I created over a year ago, https://github.com/Akkuma/Rome/commit/0cdcd210351d5c546064be857ec23d9f83d6dbe

by Akkuma 12y ago

Bad news. I've had a javascript library named Rome that I created over a year ago, https://github.com/Akkuma/Rome/commit/0cdcd210351d5c546064be857ec23d9f83d6dbe9 https://github.com/Akkuma/Rome/commit/0cdcd210351d5c546064be...

makmanalp 12y ago
Looks like you forgot to land-grab the npm package name :)
- Akkuma 12y ago
  I wasn't really intending to turn it into an npm package as I wrote it for browsers due to its use of MutationObserver.
  - lobster_johnson 12y ago
    npm is very much used for browser libraries these days: http://browserify.org/ http://browserify.org/.
    - Akkuma 12y ago
      I've never used browserify, despite working in node, so I could be off base but I thought you didn't need to make it an npm package to support CommonJS and play nicely with the rest of your browserify js.
      - lobster_johnson 12y ago
        You don't need a package.json to use CommonJS or even to use Browserify, but as a developer I don't want to copy external dependencies into a vendor folder to use them, I want to declare my deps in my app's package.json -- so any lib that uses CommonJS but doesn't provide a package.json I will probably not bother to use. People who use npm packages in browser code are pretty much all using Browserify or Webpack and leverage npm. (Many people use Bower, but I don't see the point of using two overlapping package managers.) It's a new dawn of modular JS code; no more global namespace, no more stuffing CDN links in your <head>. I recommend giving it a go.
quarterto 12y ago
And it's gained so much traction. Bevacqua absolutely has to change the name!
- Akkuma 12y ago
  I didn't try to gain traction with it since no one will use a library without documentation. Your passive aggressiveness is completely unwarranted. I never once stated he had to change his library's name. I was simply pointing out that the name was already used, since I know I personally try to avoid conflicts.

by Akkuma 12y ago

makmanalp 12y ago

Looks like you forgot to land-grab the npm package name :)

Akkuma 12y ago
I wasn't really intending to turn it into an npm package as I wrote it for browsers due to its use of MutationObserver.
- lobster_johnson 12y ago
  npm is very much used for browser libraries these days: http://browserify.org/ http://browserify.org/.
  - Akkuma 12y ago
    I've never used browserify, despite working in node, so I could be off base but I thought you didn't need to make it an npm package to support CommonJS and play nicely with the rest of your browserify js.
    - lobster_johnson 12y ago
      You don't need a package.json to use CommonJS or even to use Browserify, but as a developer I don't want to copy external dependencies into a vendor folder to use them, I want to declare my deps in my app's package.json -- so any lib that uses CommonJS but doesn't provide a package.json I will probably not bother to use. People who use npm packages in browser code are pretty much all using Browserify or Webpack and leverage npm. (Many people use Bower, but I don't see the point of using two overlapping package managers.) It's a new dawn of modular JS code; no more global namespace, no more stuffing CDN links in your <head>. I recommend giving it a go.

quarterto 12y ago

And it's gained so much traction. Bevacqua absolutely has to change the name!

Akkuma 12y ago
I didn't try to gain traction with it since no one will use a library without documentation. Your passive aggressiveness is completely unwarranted. I never once stated he had to change his library's name. I was simply pointing out that the name was already used, since I know I personally try to avoid conflicts.