71–80 of 135 posts
Real title: "Alternative libraries to request". The "deprecating" part is simply the submitter's invention, in order to stir up drama.
The maintainer put it in "maintenance-only" a year back, and officially deprecated it a week ago: https://github.com/request/request/pull/3267
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is an alternative needed? To me it sounds like the library is “done” and has all the features it needs. I wish more code was in that stable state.
fwiw they actually did mark their package as deprecated on NPM which means that all installations will see a warning that urges the user to consider other software. It's kind of like if you were to maintain your own promise implementation, then the Promise is added to stdlib. You wouldn't say that your project is "done", you'd want to encourage your users to use the native promise. Request was created back when all w…
What stdlib module supersedes `http`? Browsers have `fetch` and there's `node-fetch` and `axios` modules, but it's sad that core node hasn't updated the core http module.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, "mp3 is license free" rhymes :)
License free mp3 is good to see. But what we need, according to me, is for AAC to become license free.
Now every other house holds got PCs
They download MP3s,
People please be reasonable (yeah)
How am I gonna make my g's,
If you got my album before the release,
The quality's rubbish and there ain't no sleaves,
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is slightly archaic in that it mostly uses a callback convention, when most of the node community has moved on to promises. And there are more modern alternatives like axios that do have this promises interface.
node-fetch above all, it's standard, and works in the browser https://github.com/node-fetch/node-fetch/blob/master/package...
48k? Isn't github showing 4.4m? Everyone I see seems to use axios these days.
> Everyone I see seems to use axios these days Axios was somewhat abandoned a year or so ago. A new collaborator was added in Dec 2019 which apparently is picking it up. https://github.com/axios/axios/issues/1965 Who knows for how long though...
Deprecating is a weird decision as there is nothing wrong with the "request" module. It doesn't lead to bad code, bugs or security risks. It would be better to say this is the last version, except for security upgrades. These upgrades can be done by other maintainers that are assigned to the project.
There doesn't have to be something wrong with a solution to deprecate it, there just has to be a better alternative.
"A better alternative" is not enough of a reason to not use another alternative, because "better" is not an absolute value and choices tend to have many axis to balance (for example, prior experience).
> request will stop accepting new features. > request will stop considering breaking changes. > The committers that are still active will try to merge fixes in a timely fashion Sounds to me like the library is "done".
Hardly a hot take but a lot of people seem to think that if code isn't actively being worked it, you can't use it, as if there can never be a point where fewer and fewer bugs are reported and fewer and fewer features are requested. when's the last time Knuth wrote a check for TAOCP? Is it "dead"?
Pretty recently. I just got one in the mail today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He no longer writes checks to people for bug-hunting and hasn't done so for years due to concerns about the proliferation of his banking information. He mails out certificates.
Why do checks have your banking secrets on them?
Those numbers across the bottom are your bank's routing number and your account number. I'm honestly surprised I don't hear more about e-check theft done using those numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do checks have your banking secrets on them?
...so that they can be used? Those numbers across the bottom are your bank's routing number and your account number. I'm honestly surprised I don't hear more about e-check theft done using those numbers.
Those aren't secrets, are they? Isn't your bank account protected by separate secrets and or physical authentication tokens? You can't just take money out at a bank by giving a bank account number, surely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...so that they can be used? Those numbers across the bottom are your bank's routing number and your account number. I'm honestly surprised I don't hear more about e-check theft done using those numbers.
> Those numbers across the bottom are your bank's routing number and your account number. Those aren't secrets, are they? Isn't your bank account protected by separate secrets and or physical authentication tokens? You can't just take money out at a bank by giving a bank account number, surely?