Can JSR also be used as a CDN for browser module imports?
JSR: The JavaScript Registry
21–30 of 183 posts
Re: JSR: The JavaScript Registry
#22What's the best way to include a binary blob (wasm binary) in your package? For NPM I've been using a bundler (esbuild's `binary` loader) but I'm not sure of the best way to do that in a modern, jsr-friendly way.
Re: JSR: The JavaScript Registry
#23Man, if only they'd debuted with this, but, hindsight and all. My only thing is that TypeScript has no spec, standard, or competing implementations so it seems a bit risky to treat it as a first-class citizen as far as publishing packages goes.
Thecwayvi understand it in theory, the typescript version a library uses could disappear forever the day after a library had been published to JSR and all would be fine.
Until someone wants to maintain the code of course, but then you'd have the exact same problem with the elusive typescript version if the repository only took compile output.
What JSR would break (or make a deliberately difficult path?) is using some private fork of typescript that isn't even available on the day of publication.
The benefit of JSR, as far as I understand it, is offering an easy path to publication that makes type parts not an extra that some might skip but a reliable default. It does make me wonder however, how long-term reliable the finding will be: JSR promises more service than registries before, while also being more tool agnostic. I'm not sure if it's true, but my impression was that in many cases, the registry was primarily bankrolled by however the tooling was funded, e.g. effectively becoming a marketing expense to selling tooling expertise. JSR appears particularly removed from any of that and it's bad enough when the repository fades away in terms of static hosting, it's worse if it also leaves your library without a build process.
Re: JSR: The JavaScript Registry
#24Glad the pinnacle of programming is still there: left-pad
Re: JSR: The JavaScript Registry
#25I get their stance on TypeScript "exported types must be explicit and not use inference", but I feel like this is going to cause a lot of friction in adoption.
1. You can bypass slow types checks during publishing. You will just get a lower JSR score. 2. TypeScript is shipping features in the next release (TS 5.5) has quick-fixes in the editor to make it super easy to add explicit types :) The TS feature is called `isolatedDeclarations`
The whole reason isolated declarations is taking so long is because we also worry about making the requirements of this too onerous. To this end with isolated declarations, you do have to specify most types, but not all. For expression where we can reasonably infer the type from local context, we do so.
This should ease some of the developer friction. Not all of it. Some things will not be inferrable, but things like primitive types, object literals, tuples will be so it should make it easier.
We also worked on a code fixer that adds explicit type annotations where this new flag would raise an error, again to help people migrate if they choose to do so.
Re: JSR: The JavaScript Registry
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
that actually seems really inefficient, it could avoid the array allocation and fill call by just moving the length check...
You could also just use `String.prototype.padStart()` [1], and you get a nice optimized C++ implementation :D [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...
Re: JSR: The JavaScript Registry
#27I first read this line to mean that JSR contains every package on NPM, and was just doing some post-processing on them. But it does seem to be its own registry. Maybe the intent of the line was to communicate that you can install packages from both?
Re: JSR: The JavaScript Registry
#28If MS got the scope what would happen to the packages in that scope, or if MS didn't get it what is done to clearly communicate that this is an unofficial account (presumably) asking on MS' behalf? In this early on period I'd expect a lot of people to claim the scopes of notable companies and these companies might take issue with that if they choose to use jsr down the line.
Re: JSR: The JavaScript Registry
#29I very much like the added TypeScript support (which the standard NPM registry does not have.) and that it's open-source.
I'll see about getting my packages uploaded onto here, too -- just having built-in support for TypeScript makes packaging x100 easier.
Regarding NPM, it's absolutely insane that we've been depending upon a closed-source, monolithic nightmare with poor UX for so long. You can't even use comments in package.json -- overall, it feels like a holdover we haven't figured out how to replace.
Furthermore, it's scary that Microsoft, through GitHub, now hold so much power over the JavaScript industry -- enshittification will most likely ensue.
Re: JSR: The JavaScript Registry
#30One thing I'm not sure about when reading their policy is what'll happen in another kik situation. If someone were to claim the scope Microsoft (for example) that had no relation to Microsoft and then Microsoft came along and wanted the scope what would happen? If MS got the scope what would happen to the packages in that scope, or if MS didn't get it what is done to clearly communicate that this is an unofficial acc…
So in the case that a user published "@cocacola/foo", previously published versions of "@cocacola/foo" would remain available indefinitely (unless they were found to be malicious), but we would likely be willing to assign ownership of the "@cocacola" scope to a representative from that brand/company if they asked for it and we could verify their identity. The original author of "@cocacola/foo" would need to publish the module going forward under a different scope.