That's not 100 % accurate. Arguably symlinks are kinda weird under Windows, but that doesn't mean symlinking node_modules doesn't work (you just need admin privileges).
First, they don't act like that, and if they do that's dumb.
Second, how is that different from writing in a statically-typed language like Haskell/Rust/what have you and then compiling down to assembly which is for all intents and purposes dynamically typed? We do it hoping to gain safety from the typing, but do we lose the type safety in the machine code? (We don't, the type-safe language rules out compiling to certain classes of erroneous code.)
Happy to open an issue, but any plans on supporting git+ssh urls? For work projects, we have some modules installed via git and when I tried to install, I got the same error described here: https://github.com/alexanderGugel/ied/issues/2
+1 here, git+ssh and git+http(s) are essential imho... its' the easiest way to sidestep the need for an npm server for some internal projects/libraries.
Its install process is very different from the one npm uses. E.g. just look into the node_modules directory produced by npm vs the one produced by ied.
Also the way it wires up dependencies (using symlinks) has been called "non humane design" by npm... so I thought it would be easier to just start a new project... it's not a lot of code/logic needed there actually... :)
Basically ied uses symlinks in order to resolve circular dependencies, while ied exploits the fact that require "falls back" in the directory structure.
Understood. Though I believe your comment (which compared ied with itself) should actually read:
> Basically ied uses symlinks in order to resolve circular dependencies, while npm exploits the fact that require "falls back" in the directory structure.
This is a "cool" feature during development, since it's a nice proof of concept.
Originally I checked in the node_modules directory, but then reddit was shitting on me as usual (yes, you shouldn't check in node_modules in an actual app, but this is PACKAGE MANAGER!). As far as I know, npm has also its own dependencies check in + a ton of packages as tarballs for tests, so I might do that later.
I was just thinking about that yesterday. I write my own projects so that I don't have to dance the political dance and make my colleagues happy. My own projects are for exploring my own ideas. Advice is always appreciated, but if someone wants to dictate how I write code in my own projects, they better damn well pay me (a lot).
To the OP: Don't let people bully you. Many people have strong ideas and will want you to do things their way. You aren't going to make everyone happy, though. Somebody will be pissed off no matter what you do (if you are popular enough -- normally people won't pay any attention to you ;-) ). "Because that's what I want to do" is a completely valid reason for any decision on your own project.
> And, managing dependencies is like dealing with explosives anyways...
Only funny for anyone who hasn't been affected by one, or had friends or family who were. Still better to avoid names with negative connotations (and search for them first to check).
Just in Germany for example there are a ton of companies called ISIS (just google "ISIS GmbH").
Being offended by a three letter shell command seems a bit over the top to me to be honest.
Edit: I won't respond to further comments on the naming issue. It wasn't my intention to name it after a weapon. As I said earlier, I will change the name as soon as anyone proposes a better one.
Yeah, but when people do a google search for IED, what are they going to find?
I'd worry less about offending someone because they had to type it, and more about SEO. I'd stick with things that don't have pictures of gore and destruction on the first page of search results.
So, that's a really good reason to not.
Also, your response was shitty... You specifically state that you chose IED because it's "easy to type"... but when someone says "Hey, that's what we call bombs that insurgents use to kill people with", you reply "Yeah, but the alternative is an acronym used by JP Morgan... People getting offended by me naming something after a way to kill people are being over the top". If "IED" happened to actually mean something, fine, make a case... but it isn't actually easier to type than anything else... If you want that, name it ASD, which shouldn't have any conflicts, as the top google search result is Anchorage School District... and I couldn't find any conflicting package names.
I get it, people are constantly picking on things and suggesting that they need to be more PC... but in this case, there is absolutely NO reason for you to stick with the name IED... and several reasons to change it (SEO, offensiveness, typability).
Also, good news for german companies... The news has started using different acronyms for ISIS... I've seen IS and ISIL in regards to the paris bombings, as they're more true to the literal translation.
> That being said, it's a three letter name. It's very unlikely NOT to run into naming conflicts here.
It isn't critical to avoid all possible naming conflicts, only to avoid 1) other command-line tools and 2) names in poor taste. Thus, only the conflicts with other package managers really matter.
I wouldn't worry about naming conflicts per se, just unfortunate or misleading ones (e.g. company names).
I think "bpm" is a clever name for a faster npm client because "beats per minute" is a speed measurement and thus associated with something going really fast.
IED on the other hand has the association of people dying or being crippled by terrorists.
Only funny for anyone who hasn't been affected by one, or had friends or family who were.
Oh, lay off the holier-than-thou moral outrage. I bet you could mine for naming collisions in a space of three characters like this all day, or really all sorts of project names.
With two letters it gets even better. I was offered ss.com but passed, later I thought I should have taken it and turned it into a site documenting the atrocities committed by the SS and to strongly attack neo-nazis by showing them for what they are. Missed opportunity.
I don't think the name is supposed to be funny. If you're afraid of naming things something just because someone, somewhere in the world have been affected by what you're naming your thing, you'll run out of names.
Its more the case that the set of people that could take offense to something is effectively infinite.
Say the programmer has english as a second language, its really easy not to know "common" things like this. Taking outrage in these cases is not in very good faith as the presumption is that the name is the same thing as the acronym in question.
Lets say they chose to name it baa, and people reacted to it thusly:
- what is this implying all users are sheep! needs to be changed/boycotted
- ...
- this makes no sense, name it after its function xyz.
- this is a horrible name, I'm going to encourage everyone I know not to use this
Sometimes people CANNOT be pleased or appeased or even bargained with when they respond to things from the pathos mindset. Make an effort sure but recently people seem to be going out of their way to be offended. As a fan of debate and arguing I hate that the presumption in these debates presumes bad intent. That style of thinking eventually leads to a very closed mindset.
I always thought the name of git/github was mildly offensive to me... but never really enough to speak out about. Though I think that ASD mentioned above (I added "Another Stupid Deployment") isn't a bad name.
This post will attract those of conservative/libertarian mentality who like to stand for our right to use language that may offend people, but I just want to add another vote for changing the name.
I am not particularly sensitive to these things, but upon reading the name, an image came to mind of a soldier leaning against a concrete wall on a dusty urban street, leg recently blown off, bleeding out, in shock. That image is now permanently associated with your project for me :)
For comparison, imagine if you'd called it "iud". At least in American society, this is more readily agreed to be offensive because of our sex taboo and gender inequality.
For a lot of people, the thought of war evokes deep visceral feelings of horror and fear. Such people will be less likely to use your project, which you could argue is a form of discrimination, and in any case doesn't benefit anyone.
I had a project that got really popular and went through like 5 name changes. It was a horrible experience. My advice to anyone who is ever involved in naming a software project:
spend no more than 2 minutes picking a name, and stick with it
This is why developers should try to avoid introducing dependencies. Not at all costs, of course, but typical project in JavaScript, Go, Ruby, or Python has way, way too many dependencies, while little of them have any significant benefit.
Delegating things to a library you give up control over any bugs the library
has. You can't simply fix the bug like you would do to your code, you either
need to fork the library (maintaining a fork has cost), patch it (maintaining
the patch is not free), or send fixes to its maintainer -- or any combination
of these.
Using many dependencies also makes your application a fractal of dependencies.
Library you use has its own dependencies, which have their own dependencies,
which have... And so on. If you happen to want to put your application to
DEB/RPM packages properly, host your app's dependencies locally to isolate
from network outages, or do virtually anything non-trivial with your app, you
hit the list of dependencies very hard.
It's not to say dependencies are evil; like any generalization, this would be
simply stupid. But they have their cost, and it's large. You'd better make
sure a library really simplifies your life before adding it to your project.
And writing custom code to duplicate a library doesn't have a cost? (compared to forking).
I find that using tools like npm, nuget, gems, and the like along with github for core libraries makes managing dependencies FAR better than relying on an internal copy of said package in my project, which is just as risky as an internal fork. Yes, there's a chance the package system can be down while you are wanting to deploy.. that's why you prepare on a staging server, and duplicate that to production. Hell with things like docker, you create your container, and run it with environment variables for which environment it's running against.
> And writing custom code to duplicate a library doesn't have a cost? (compared to forking).
Of course it does, but again: it's you who controls the code, not the
library's upstream. You can easily patch and adjust whatever necessary,
without being bothered with future merges from upstream.
This aspect grows in importance as the library gives less and less benefits.
For example, I wouldn't hesitate to use Flask or Django for a web application,
but I would think very hard what good is going to give me logging library
other than Python's built-in.
> I find that using tools like npm, nuget, gems, and the like along with github for core libraries makes managing dependencies FAR better than relying on an internal copy of said package in my project
npm and gems give you dynamics very different from seeing dependencies by
yourself. You see dependencies as very cheap (which is not true, it's just the
cost is hidden from you), so you don't bother with thinking if you really
need the new dependency. If it can shorten your code by twenty lines, you
see it worth.
Did you run your name by /anyone/ whatsoever before posting this? I can't imagine that if you'd say, asked three people, one of them wouldn't have laughed at the very suggestion. IED indeed. This is the sort of silly mistake one can only make if one is acting in isolation: to me it's super important in life to be checking in with people constantly when making decisions like this. Typically a couple of people will do it: after that, for me in my circle anyway, the returns diminish. What a waste of people's time and energy on this forum, just because you didn't bother checking with people (I'm assuming). It's kinda selfish of you, in that sense. Well, good luck renaming it, and good luck figuring out where you went wrong.
I made this. I'm happy to answer any questions, but please bear in mind that this is a WIP. There is still a lot of work to be done, although feature parity with npm is not the goal.
Upcoming features are:
* Nix-like rollbacks
* built in registry server
* discovery + installation via BitTorrent DHT
Although using ied and npm at the same time for installing dependencies should work, you might run into some weird corner cases.
Therefore, npm and ied are compatible in the sense that you can use ied to install packages and npm for publishing them. At least that's the level of compatibility that is currently supported.
Good to hear, I reckon I could quite happily use ied for all the installing stuff if it's going to produce the same tree as npm, but perhaps not support all of the crazy corner cases.
For the discovery and installation, you might be interested in looking into using IPFS for it. Kind of gives you all the features you want out-of-the-box. Also, another guy is working on mirroring the npm registry in IPFS, might be interesting for you: https://github.com/diasdavid/registry-mirror
I've started `registry-mirror` to demonstrate how a Content-Addressed file structure and P2P discovery, can bring a lot of speed improvements, specially when the bottleneck is low bandwidth/latency to the backbone, by connecting to more local peers that have the content that we are looking for.
Right now, the goal with `registry-mirror` is to have a very large IPFS node in the network with the entire npm and that keeps replicating it, while end user machines only download the modules they need (and if they agree, provide them to the network as well). Each end user will be able to get the latest state of the registry, through a IPNS hash, a mutable pointer, that changes each time the mirror is updated.
if you can make this work in a way that it's capable of reinstalling a precise snapshot (like using a Gemfile.lock in Ruby's Bundler world) and keep it stable then I once again will have faith in JS package management.
I mean if you keep your shell scripts in ~/bin/ (which is where I happen to keep mine)... I use straight bash scripts most of the time, but it's usually easiest for me to use node/js since my environment already has it than it is for me to try to remember perl, learn python or use something else.
Making using a shrinkwrap not awful would be amazing.
Having fast immutable shrinkwrap installs, and the ability to upgrade or selectively upgrade packages in the shrinkwrap vs. the semver in package.json would be a huge win.
(Disclaimer: I'm the author of ied.)