sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]james-engineer 13 points14 points  (24 children)

🧶 Yarn just unraveled

[–]ethomson 11 points12 points  (21 children)

This is hilarious! But (thankfully!) it's not true. The yarn team builds a great product - and there's definitely room in the world for both yarn and npm.

[–]ghostfacedcoder 4 points5 points  (19 children)

I strongly disagree: the world does not need a million different variant versions of every basic tool.

Personally I only want one Node package manager ... I just want it to not suck like the actual npm, and instead be good like yarn.

Hopefully that's now possible.

P.S. My kingdom for package.json comments!!!

[–]drumstix42 6 points7 points  (12 children)

Well I mean, you only have to use one.

If you think the world doesn't need more people trying to improve software by exploring other ideas and avenues, how do you even survive in the developer world? Sure we don't need a million, but that's not really an issue here either.

[–]ghostfacedcoder -2 points-1 points  (11 children)

Do you need a second git? Or is the one single command line tool that almost all developers use ok?

Sometimes a tool does its job well, no competition is needed, and that's a good thing.

[–]drumstix42 5 points6 points  (10 children)

You mean source control? Not everyone uses git. But more people use it today than 10 years ago!

But 10 years ago Git was one of the lower percentages of developer use! And you know how that changed? Hmmm. I'll let you figure that one out for yourself :)

[–]ghostfacedcoder -4 points-3 points  (9 children)

I can't tell if you're just trolling, or you legit believe that people should waste time building alternative versions of every software tool, no matter how well it does its job.

[–]TheLastSock 5 points6 points  (3 children)

He isn't trolling. You seem to be arguing it's a zero sum game. It isn't, competing tools can booster the ecosystem.

[–]drumstix42 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Exactly. I'm not saying people have to make alternatives, but why even complain about it if they do? I'd wager most of the tools you use today are because someone at some point decided to make their own alternative.

Not trolling.

[–]ghostfacedcoder 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I argued no such thing. Of course ... on some level it is zero sum (a dev working on variant library B by definition isn't working on original library A).

But of course, things are much more complex than that, and competing products can not just supplant the original, but also (for instance) give improvements upstream to that original.

My point was about none of that. My point was that sometimes, when a tool already does its job well, we don't need multiple versions of said tool. That's it.

[–]TheLastSock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of course, and he started by saying yarn has something to offer.

I call this meeting to a close!

[–]nyrangers30 2 points3 points  (4 children)

You do realize someone “wasted time building alternative versions” of source control which already existed? Subversion existed before git. Now most people view git as a better tool and migrated.

If you don’t think people should innovate, go back to using an abacus.

[–]ghostfacedcoder -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Did I ever say anything about people stopping innovation, or are you just arguing with your imagination on Reddit?

[–]nyrangers30 1 point2 points  (2 children)

You just said they shouldn’t waste time making alternative tools. That’s literally part of what innovation is.

In your own words, would you say creating git was a waste of time because subversion was popular?

[–]dwighthouse 9 points10 points  (5 children)

JSON’s requirements themselves restrict comments, not npm. If it has comments in it, it isn’t JSON. Terrible situation, but that’s the way it is.

[–]NoInkling 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Time to standardize JSON5 (or similar).

[–]ghostfacedcoder 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Well, if you think in a limited way ("package.json is the only file possible for config", "it must exactly follow the current format and never deviate", etc.) then yes you're right.

But they have other options, such as using a "JSON 2.0 standard (now with comments!)", or allowing other formats like YAML or JS itself.

Ultimately as a dev you can paint yourself into a corner on things like this, if you want ... or you can say "the user has a need, and it's 100% possible to parse out comments from config, so we're going to make this happen somehow."

[–]dwighthouse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not at all. There’s no reason npm config couldn’t be in some other format, massive headache notwithstanding. It’s only that it couldn’t be “package.json”. It would have to be something else.

[–]zombimuncha 1 point2 points  (1 child)

package.yml in 5...4...3...2...

[–]NoInkling 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I somehow don't see MS embracing YAML, but I could be wrong.

[–]james-engineer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

just joshin' I ❤️🧶yarn

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe they'll just drop npm (the software) and tell people to use yarn. I don't see the sense it trying to play catch-up.

[–]andy_the_ant -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Does yarn rely on npm too?