• azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago
    1. Like Python, have a large and featureful standard library such that > 80% of NPM packages are redundant. Other languages allow you to make very large projects with only a few tens of dependencies. JavaScript requires THOUSANDS.
    2. With this in place, stop with the recursive dependencies, immediately and forever. Every other package manager under the sun installs the dependencies next to each other.

    I’d say pip is saner, though not by much as its support for private registries is very bad and seems designed to facilitate supply-chain attacks. I’ve heard a lot of good things about cargo but haven’t used it enough myself to have a strong opinion.

    • Jesus_666@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      The lack of a standard library is really the worst offender. Most of a given node_modules directory is filled with middleware to handle JS’s lack of everything.

        • Jesus_666@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Compared to other languages it’s still very barebones – but admittedly some of the bloat is also because the JS world is kinda set in its ways. I still see people use jQuery for basic selector queries and SASS for basic CSS variables.

          Another factor is that developers these days assume that users have fast unmetered connections. Loading 800 kB of minified gzipped JS from ten different domains is seen as no big deal. When the cost of adding piles of dependencies is considered nil there’s no impetus to avoid them.

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s saner, not perfect. With virtualenvs it does basically what you describe except that it re-downloads everything for every virtualenv, but that does not typically matter much since it’s not downloading a billion dependencies.

        With NPM there’s no choice but to have hundreds of duplicates installed for every project, that’s not just inefficient but it is a security, maintainability, and auditability nightmare.

    • QuazarOmega@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      The standard library thing is a really valid point, but how do you avoid recursive dependencies? Do you just not allow library packages to depend on anything?

      pip is saner

      Is it? It is very bare bones in my experience, I could never bring myself to use it until they make it a more fully fledged tool, such as the cargo you mentioned, yes

      • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        npm downloads every dependency recursively. If a depends on d (= 1.2.3) and b depends on d (= 1.2.4), then both versions of d get downloaded into a and b’s respective node_modules.

        All other package managers I’m aware of resolve dependencies into a flat list then download, and you can only have one version of the same package on your system.

        • QuazarOmega@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          You mean npm duplicates even if the the two dependency versions are compatible?

          you can only have one version of the same package on your system.

          That couldn’t be, right? Otherwise, if you installed two packages that rely on different incompatible versions of another package, one of the two would break. Reading a bit they should check for “satisfiability”, I found some really interesting things on the topic looking around:

          • azertyfun@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            You mean npm duplicates even if the the two dependency versions are compatible?

            By default yes, unless you explicity use the “peer dependency” system which isn’t the default. The “default” naive implementation is for every package in your node_modules to have a node_modules of its own, all the way down recursively. There are tricks nowdays to deduplicate packages with the exact same version, but not to automatically detect “compatible” versions and use those instead (in my experience nothing would work if that was the case, deleting package-lock.json causes way too many issues due to the… uh, let’s call it “brave” approach of JS devs to stability).

            That couldn’t be, right? Otherwise, if you installed two packages that rely on different incompatible versions of another package, one of the two would break

            Correct. This is intended behavior which is solved in several ways:

            1. Correctly declaring your dependencies. If newer versions of a dependency break your package, disallow them, but that is not normally needed for minor version changes.
            2. Focus on quality. Semver exists for a reason, and 1.2.3 should not break something built against 1.1.2. JS and NPM’s cascade of stupid implementations bred a culture of “move fast and break things”, but that’s not the norm in any other commonly used ecosystem
            3. Linux distros almost exclusively use curated repositories, so they are (mostly) internally consistent and incompatibilities are rare and quickly fixed. A good package manager will resolve dependencies and automatically detect incompatibilities, proposing several fixes (typically abort the upgrade or uninstall one of the problematic packages)
            4. Not breaking down packages into a constellation of smaller packages. glibc6 is glibc6, not glibc_string (1.2.3) + glibc_memory (2.6.5) + glibc_fs (1.5.3) + glibc_stdio (1.9.2) + glibc_threads (6.1.0) + …
              Internally glibc6 is a bunch of modules, but they get bundled into one package specifically to simplify dependency management.

            Not being able to install two versions of the same package sounds restrictive, but it’s a HUGE security benefit: glibc6 (1.2.3) is vulnerable to CVE-2024-1, then updating to glibc6 (1.2.4) secures your entire system at once. With NPM though, you have to either wait for every. single. dependency on that vulnerable package down your tree to recursively update, or patch those versions yourself (at your own risk because again, small version changes often break things since developers think that NPM’s dependency model means they don’t have to actually provide stability guarantees).

      • labsin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Other package managers, like nuget, throw errors if all dependencies on a package cannot be met by a single version.

        This is probably the result of it copying all libraries in the same output directory and that .net cannot load 2 different versions of the same library so more an application restriction.

        The downside of this is that packages often can’t use newer features if they want to not block the users of that library and that utility libraries have to have his backwards compatibility so applications can use the latest version while dependent libraries target an older version. Often applications keep using older versions with known security issues.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      IDK any full-time JS or Node developers but they seem like they’re lazy and all have ADD. Packages developed for years still on version 0.x, packages depending on deprecated packages that were replaced by core functionality, packages still using CommonJS format (which I actually like better unfortunately), and popular packages without an update for 3 years. It feels like the entire ecosystem is for hobbyists only and businesses are like, “Cute language, but not for us.”