4 ms·

I'm puzzled why the author highlights "Lightweight: no dependencies" as a strength - in node.js land this is not the case in my opinion. I'm happy to hear peopl

by watson 12y ago

I'm puzzled why the author highlights "Lightweight: no dependencies" as a strength - in node.js land this is not the case in my opinion. I'm happy to hear people's view on this

shakeel_mohamed 12y ago
The readme says "Lightweight: no dependencies like jQuery, cheerio, or jsdom", I think the context is relevant for performance and/or size reasons.
- watson 12y ago
  He already uses libxml, so cheerio or jsdom would be alternatives. It's true that cheerio it self have 5 direct dependencies and I'm not sure if that is what he refers to when using the word "lightweight". I can't speak on the performance difference between libxml and cheerio, but jsdom seems to be way slower than cheerio. So maybe that's what he means with lightweight.
jsprogrammer 12y ago
The main source is 174 lines with lots of empty lines and a fair amount of what looks like debug code. Not sure what you are wanting to be taken out? Also, it does have dependencies (check package.json); you just took a quote out of its context.
- watson 12y ago
  I didn't look at what could be taken out - I was just reflecting on the "no dependencies" thing. But you might be right... maybe it's as bare bone as need be. Also I might be coloured by some folks avoiding dependencies like the plague ;) I usually prefer small modules coupled with other small modules as the result usually means more tested code (when related to node.js that is).
risyasin 12y ago
Well, you are right about nodejs land & what it means being lightweight in that land. Frankly it looks like hell when you have to deal with not only packages also with their semantic versions. but being another nodejs crawler library owner (Arachnod: Web Crawler for Node.js https://www.npmjs.com/package/arachnod https://www.npmjs.com/package/arachnod), i can assure you that Developer has a point about being lightweight & no dependency of his package. When i had started to code a crawler with nodejs i had to deal with many problems (i believe amount of problems may be less for other common languages) Also i haven't tried it for a long shot for example to make it work more than millions of webpages, but "memory leak free" is a really strong claim which has to be tested first.
- watson 12y ago
  I'm interested to hear what you think is problematic when building a web crawler in regards to dependencies? Is it specific to the DOM parsing?
  - fapjacks 12y ago
    I've toyed with web scraping in Node, and the answer is definitely parsing.

by watson 12y ago

I'm puzzled why the author highlights "Lightweight: no dependencies" as a strength - in node.js land this is not the case in my opinion. I'm happy to hear people's view on this

shakeel_mohamed 12y ago

The readme says "Lightweight: no dependencies like jQuery, cheerio, or jsdom", I think the context is relevant for performance and/or size reasons.

watson 12y ago
He already uses libxml, so cheerio or jsdom would be alternatives. It's true that cheerio it self have 5 direct dependencies and I'm not sure if that is what he refers to when using the word "lightweight". I can't speak on the performance difference between libxml and cheerio, but jsdom seems to be way slower than cheerio. So maybe that's what he means with lightweight.

jsprogrammer 12y ago

The main source is 174 lines with lots of empty lines and a fair amount of what looks like debug code. Not sure what you are wanting to be taken out? Also, it does have dependencies (check package.json); you just took a quote out of its context.

watson 12y ago
I didn't look at what could be taken out - I was just reflecting on the "no dependencies" thing. But you might be right... maybe it's as bare bone as need be. Also I might be coloured by some folks avoiding dependencies like the plague ;) I usually prefer small modules coupled with other small modules as the result usually means more tested code (when related to node.js that is).

risyasin 12y ago

Well, you are right about nodejs land & what it means being lightweight in that land. Frankly it looks like hell when you have to deal with not only packages also with their semantic versions. but being another nodejs crawler library owner (Arachnod: Web Crawler for Node.js https://www.npmjs.com/package/arachnod https://www.npmjs.com/package/arachnod), i can assure you that Developer has a point about being lightweight & no dependency of his package. When i had started to code a crawler with nodejs i had to deal with many problems (i believe amount of problems may be less for other common languages) Also i haven't tried it for a long shot for example to make it work more than millions of webpages, but "memory leak free" is a really strong claim which has to be tested first.

watson 12y ago
I'm interested to hear what you think is problematic when building a web crawler in regards to dependencies? Is it specific to the DOM parsing?
- fapjacks 12y ago
  I've toyed with web scraping in Node, and the answer is definitely parsing.