Hacker News Reader

IMO the appeal of Deno was an opportunity to rethink the JavaScript ecosystem. The introduction of all these Node features make it far more likely that things stay the same way they currently exist with Node, making it feel pointless to bother with Deno at all in the first place.

View on HN

except that if deno fails because its uptake cost makes it hard for engineers to sell to their org, what does it accomplish then? At least if it's getting used heavily people can invest engineering effort into the ecosystem on company time.

Does every project need to strive for maximum adoption? I guess because Deno is a company the answer is yes.

But I think one of Deno’s initial appeals was “A JS/TS runtime for people that don’t want to deal with JavaScript status quo”. Its accomplishment would have been to be bold and try something different, similar to for example Zig.

Is package.json required?

Not required, but perhaps contagious

This is a valid concern but I think they can mitigate it with social pressure, documentation, and public success stories from users that fully eschew the old system.

Hopefully not everything has to be as contagious as POSIX compatibility was for OS's.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com