Hacker News Reader

Comment by seabass | Hacker News Reader

When would I want to use JSR? The "Why JSR?" section simply says JSR is a superset of NPM that can be used with any javascript package manager. But NPM itself can also be used with any javascript package manager as far as I know. It seems like the benefit they're trying to add is strict type support for packages, but the fact that it's a superset of NPM means all existing packages that lack types are still supported by JSR. So, what benefit is so great that it's worth segmenting the ecosystem?

Side rant: not at all a fan of the decision to punish libraries ("slow types") that use type inference by reducing their score.

View on HN

In terms of "when you would use it" - it doesn't necessarily solve a different problem than npm. I think it arguably solves the same problem more effectively (though it is certainly early days and npm still does a lot of things JSR doesn't). I also don't know that we're segmenting the ecosystem, as JSR packages interoperate with npm packages, and you can use one from the other. JSR will end up being additive to npm.

For module authors, we're hoping JSR will be helpful in the following ways:

1.) You can develop and publish TypeScript source, and let JSR handle transpilation and generating .d.ts files for runtimes that don't natively support TypeScript. Especially nice if you are using Deno or Bun (that do natively support TypeScript), and don't have tsc in your workflow otherwise.

2.) JSR generates API docs for you on your package page based on your source code and comments.

3.) JSR has a great DX around publishing packages from GitHub Actions using OIDC (no juggling tokens)

4.) JSR automatically provides provenance for published versions of packages

For module consumers, it helps too:

1.) Compatible with both Deno and existing npm-based projects

2.) Package info and docs provided centralized on the jsr.io site

3.) Quality scores that encourage authors to make their packages fast and well documented

4.) Access to TypeScript source for packages (not just transpiled output)

Absolutely more to be done, but we're hoping that JSR will provide enough extra value to both module authors and consumers that both will prefer to use it when possible.

Sounds like a good value prop. One thing that I'm hoping is to reduce dependency on a single private company, npm inc., in publishing and distributing modules. But you didn't list this as a value prop. (I notice other posters are upset at the 'fragmentation' of module distribution, but I see this as a strength, not a weakness.)

> not at all a fan of the decision to punish libraries ("slow types") that use type inference by reducing their score.

Do you feel that using type inference doesn't actually reduce performance, or just that it's not a big enough problem to warrant a reduced score?

The performance of type inference matters for runtimes which work with TypeScript files directly, rather then using the transpiled .js + .d.ts files like Deno. This has several benefits in that we can jump to the source on "go to definition" rather than some random .d.ts file among other things. Deno uses the original TS files for type checking as well and that's why inference also affects type checking performance in some runtimes.

By ensuring explicit return types in the public API, the generation of .d.ts files is turned into a mere syntax transform, rather than requiring the tsc compiler. This is something TypeScript will ship with in the next release itself. They're adding a new `isolatedDeclarations` option which is the same thing.

Type inference in dependencies does not reduce performance for users, but just for JSR. Here they’re going “the Google way” by adding some random metric that benefits them, not users. Once generated, .d.ts files do not contain inference.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com