Google Web Starter Kit
developers.google.com
Google Web Starter Kit
1–10 of 81 posts
Re: Google Web Starter Kit
#2> .gitignore: node_modules
Wait, did I miss something? Wasn't it google who started the "vendor everything" philosophy in the first place?
Re: Google Web Starter Kit
#3> .gitignore: node_modules Wait, did I miss something? Wasn't it google who started the "vendor everything" philosophy in the first place?
Aren't people supposed to just require the dependencies in package.json and not distribute the large blob of code? And you run "npm install"? Isn't that the current web dev "way" of life...?
Re: Google Web Starter Kit
#4> .gitignore: node_modules Wait, did I miss something? Wasn't it google who started the "vendor everything" philosophy in the first place?
So? What's wrong with this? Why would someone check-in all the 3rd party code, when same can be described in package.json & downloaded again.
Re: Google Web Starter Kit
#5> .gitignore: node_modules Wait, did I miss something? Wasn't it google who started the "vendor everything" philosophy in the first place?
Vendoring packages doesn't mean vendoring in git. Vendoring in git is a terrible idea (which for some absurd reason the golang community has decided isn't...). It pollutes your tree, your history, your blames, your searches, makes your git repository massive, etc etc.
Node would be even worse.
Re: Google Web Starter Kit
#6> .gitignore: node_modules Wait, did I miss something? Wasn't it google who started the "vendor everything" philosophy in the first place?
So? What's wrong with this? Why would someone check-in all the 3rd party code, when same can be described in package.json & downloaded again.
I guess some see a risk of mutability(https://medium.com/@azerbike/i-ve-just-liberated-my-modules-...).
But you can always use shrink-wrap or other package managers that guarantee immutability.
Oh, I guess I should say I love npm/yarn and use it as a core of all my projects. ️
Re: Google Web Starter Kit
#7An opinionated Web Starter Kit with no libraries or frameworks included? What is Google's opinion on which way to build a web application, roll your own?
Re: Google Web Starter Kit
#8> .gitignore: node_modules Wait, did I miss something? Wasn't it google who started the "vendor everything" philosophy in the first place?
So? What's wrong with this? Why would someone check-in all the 3rd party code, when same can be described in package.json & downloaded again.
I started seeing the floating dependency approach at smaller places and personally consider it a bad pattern.
You get everything you depend on, stuff it into a folder named third-party, and check it in forever (or until security bugs, features you need, etc). Include all and any licences, this is important.
When dealing with any software that's supposed to be our there for decades, the last thing you want it to have unplanned work because of missing libraries.
Re: Google Web Starter Kit
#9> .gitignore: node_modules Wait, did I miss something? Wasn't it google who started the "vendor everything" philosophy in the first place?
Vendoring packages doesn't mean vendoring in git. Vendoring in git is a terrible idea (which for some absurd reason the golang community has decided isn't...). It pollutes your tree, your history, your blames, your searches, makes your git repository massive, etc etc. Node would be even worse.
Well, Go doesn't have a package system and no good external tool to circumvent it.
So the choice is either maintain a fork of every dependency or vendor them, and vendoring is considerably less painful imo.
(I'm not saying it's a good solution, mind you)
Re: Google Web Starter Kit
#10An opinionated Web Starter Kit with no libraries or frameworks included? What is Google's opinion on which way to build a web application, roll your own?
I'd say that's pretty situational, depending on the type of site you want to build. Including tools like SASS, gulp, etc should be applicable to most sites, though.