Hacker News Reader

The practical disk usage difference between pnp and pnpm appears to be almost entirely accounted for by the fact that pnp zips almost all packages. Both store ~1 version of each package-version on disk; it's just that one's zipped and one's not. The mapping entries for package edges in both cases (.pnp.cjs for pnp and the symlink farms for pnpm) are very small in comparison.

Disk utilization is only one metric. The trade-off for Yarn PNP is that it incurs runtime startup cost. For us (~1000+ package monorepo), that can be a few seconds, which can be a problem if you're doing things like CLI tools.

Also, realistically, with a large enough repo, you will need to unplug things that mess w/ file watching or node-gyp/c++ packages, so there is some amount of duplication and fiddling required.

Problames long solved before, but problems that don't matter to the javascript crowd.. I think they actually love that things take so long. It makes them thing they're doing important work.. "We're compiling and initting"