at least building failed http://travis-ci.org/#!/twitter/bower
Bower: A package manager for the web, from Twitter
31–40 of 45 posts
Re: Bower: A package manager for the web, from Twitter
#32NPM already provides this functionality and Isaacs has said that people should use NPM for client-side packages.
Re: Bower: A package manager for the web, from Twitter
#33So first I can install node and npm through my system package managed, then I can install bower through the node package manager, then I can finally install libraries with the bower package manager. Something is wrong here.
Yeah, the system package manager is trying to do too much.
Re: Bower: A package manager for the web, from Twitter
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference is that the component project depends on Github. Bower is much more low-level and unopinionated. All you need is a Git path.
Surely that could have been a pull request to Component instead?
I don't think so, because it is a different philosophy and as they say in the FAQ
> Bower is a lower level component then Jam, Volo, or Ender. These managers could consume Bower as a dependency.
I think it is actually an approach that is more useful and makes more sense than Volo, Components etc. because of it's low-levelness.
Re: Bower: A package manager for the web, from Twitter
#35What's different about this than the official component project? https://github.com/component/component https://github.com/component/spec/wiki Bower seems like a blatant ripoff. Twitter Engineering doesn't even mention the component project or spec on the Bower page at all...
The difference is that the component project depends on Github. Bower is much more low-level and unopinionated. All you need is a Git path.
That's because without using GitHub, Bower's packages aren't namespaced. This was something discussed at length on the component spec github.
It sure feels like Twitter is avoiding giving credit where credit is due. No links to the component.json spec or any mention of TJ Holowaychuk's component feels smarmy to me.
Re: Bower: A package manager for the web, from Twitter
#36NPM already provides this functionality and Isaacs has said that people should use NPM for client-side packages.
> Isaacs has said that people should use NPM for client-side packages.
Link?
Re: Bower: A package manager for the web, from Twitter
#37Does anyone think this can finally be the tool to bring sane package management to client side JavaScript development? I'm hesitant to use any of the existing tools because none of them support all the libraries I use, so I'd end up doing stuff manually anyway, and I don't have any confidence that any of them will keep working in the long term.
For the libraries that do not conform to CJS or AMD, most loaders support a "shim" configuration:
* http://requirejs.org/docs/api.html#config-shim
To load a library that uses Node/CJS modules:
* https://github.com/requirejs/cajon#why
- or -
Re: Bower: A package manager for the web, from Twitter
#38Couldn't it extend package.json instead of using a separate file? Something like "clientDependencies": [...] would be nice - most projects I work on these days already have a package.json file. The ./components path could be configurable too.
Other package managers seem to be pulling this off just fine. I am happy to go either way though:
Re: Bower: A package manager for the web, from Twitter
#39So first I can install node and npm through my system package managed, then I can install bower through the node package manager, then I can finally install libraries with the bower package manager. Something is wrong here.
Yeah, the system package manager is trying to do too much.
✓
Re: Bower: A package manager for the web, from Twitter
#40Trying to get back onto the developer world's good side?
As part of the 99% of developers who work for other people, I resent troll-bait comments like this. Twitter, in addition to being a genuinely interesting social phenomenon, has always posed technical challenges that were sufficiently interesting to attract some top-notch people. Give them the respect of judging them by their technical work, and not their employer's latest unpopular business decision.
✓