You don't need a build step

> And as someone who has worked on both, I can tell you that the container ecosystem is way better and way more deterministic. `Dockerfile` from 10 years back would work today as well. Any non-trivial package.json written even a few years ago would have half the packages deprecated in non-backward compatible way!

As I wrote elsewhere [1], Dockerfiles are not deterministic. The build artifacts that they produce are deterministic, but that would be comparing a build artifact to a build system.

> There is another similar ecosystem of mobile apps. That's also way superior in terms of the developer experience.

Mobile app users have different performance expectations. No one bats an eye if a mobile app takes several minutes to download/update, but a website that does so would be considered an atrocity.

> And that's not what I am objecting to. My concern is that the core JS specification is so barebones that it fragments right from the start.

JS is actually really well specified by ECMA. There are so many languages where the formal specification is "whatever the most popular compiler outputs".

> You make different choices and soon every single JS project looks drastically different from every other project.

The same could be said of any other moderately complex project written in a different language. Look at the Techempower benchmarks for Java, and tell me those projects all look identical [2].

> 1. There isn't a standard project format 2. There isn't a single framework that's backward compatible for 5+ years. 3. There isn't even an agreeement on the right build tools (npm vs yarn vs pnpm...) 4. There isn't an agreement on how to do multi-threaded async work

A lot of the complexity you're describing stems from running in the browser. A server-side js project that returns plain html with a standard templating language is remarkably stable. Express has been on version 4.x.x for literally 9 years [3]. Package.json is supported by yarn, npm, and pnpm. As long as you have a valid lock file and install dependencies using npm ci, you really shouldn't have too many issues running most js projects. I'm not sure what issues you've had with multi-threaded async. The standard for multi-threading in js is web workers (which are called worker threads in node). The js ecosystem is not like Scala or Rust, where's there's tokio and akka. JS uses promises for concurrency, and workers for parallelism.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35002815

[2]https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/tree/9844...

[3] https://www.npmjs.com/package/express/v/4.0.0

You can't see a good reason to validate form inputs client side and use the exact same validations server side?

> [graph]

> Interest in Node.js grew since its inception.

They should mention the source of this, I guess is Google Trends.

This article is spot on. As a developer, I don't want to see the build step. As soon as you expose the mechanics of the build and transpilation process to developers, you add a ton of complexity; for example, it opens up the possibility of transpiler and JS engine version incompatibilities. Devs should only need to concern themselves with one number; the version of the engine which runs their code. If they need to worry about the engine version and the transpiler version separately, it makes code less portable because you can't just say "This library runs on Node.js version x.x." It sucks to come across a library which works on your engine version but relies on a newer version of TypeScript... It's like hoping for the planets to align sometimes.

Having worked on package management in all the verticals you’ve mentioned, none of what you said is true.

Packages in most ecosystems are fetched over HTTP and those packages disappear. If you’re lucky those packages are stored in a centrally maintained repository like npm, distro repos, etc. If you’re unlucky it’s a decentralized system like early go where anyone can host their own repo. Anyone running builds at scale have caches in place to deal with ecosystem weirdness otherwise your builds stop working randomly through the day.

Re: Go, good luck getting a go package from 10 years back to compile, they directly addressed the repository the code lived in! This was a major problem for large projects that literally failed and were abandoned half way through the dev cycle because their dependencies disappeared.

Re: Docker - Good luck with rerunning a glorified series of shell scripts every build. There’s a reason we stopped doing ansible. When you run simple shell scripts locally they seem infallable. Run that same script over 1000s of consecutive builds and you’ll find all sorts of glorious edge cases. Docker fakes reproducibility by using snapshots at every step, but those are extremely fragile when you need to update any layer. You’ll go to rebake an image from a year ago to update the OS and find out the Dockerfile won’t build anymore.

Apt is a glorified tarball (ar-chive) with a manifest and shell scripts. Pkg too. Each with risks of misplacing files. *nix systems in general all share a global namespace and YOLO unpack an archive followed by running scripts with risk of irreversibly borking your system during an update. We have all sorts of snapshotting flows to deal with this duck tape and popsicle stick approach to package management.

That package management in pretty much any ecosystem works well enough to keep the industry chugging along is nothing short of a miracle. And by miracle I mean many many human lifetimes wasted pulling hair out over these systems misbehaving.

You go back and read the last two decades of LISA papers and they’re all rehashing the same problems maintaining packages across large systems deployments with little real innovation until the Nix paper.