5 ms·
Why is having node as a dependency such a bad thing? No snark. Genuinely curious.
by Xavi 12y ago
Why is having node as a dependency such a bad thing? No snark. Genuinely curious.
- aendruk 12y agoThe subsequent sentence suggests that the benefit is convenience of impromptu deployment: > You can download a single binary, scp it to a far away machine, and expect it to work.
- ajtaylor 12y agoI don't think that node is bad, but it's simply another dependency you have to worry about. Most devs likely won't have node pre-installed. Having a no-dependency binary is a great thing.
- cryptonector 12y agoNode is great, and a port of jq to node would be awesome (someone once hinted at such a port, but I've lost track of it). But jq also has libjq, a C library. And jq uses a copy-on-write, reference counted representation of JSON values, which is, for example, inherently thread-safe (though jq isn't using atomic operations for refcount management yet). The library is easy to use and powerful. Ultimately the main thing I love about jq (and why I contribute to it) is the jq language itself. It reminds me of my one-time favorite, Icon. But in a world where C is still the champion of systems programming (until Rust takes over?), it's real handy to have a C JSON library _and_ a functional DSL that's easy to invoke from C.
- slapresta 12y agoOne of jq's maintainers (nicowilliams) often mentions Icon as a source of inspiration.
- cryptonector 12y ago@nicowilliams (github) and cryptonector (HN) are one and the same ;) It's no secret either, just look at my commit messages' email address :)
- bsg75 12y agoBecause if you are not developing in node, and don't have any other node based software, yet another runtime, its package manager(s), and dependencies are unwanted additions to a system.