Hacker News Reader

3. So when that dependency gets removed by npm uninstall how should that comment be handled? You know that in business we just would end up with a bunch of dead comments in the package.json - is that really a better alternative than just using Ctrl+f to find where the dependency is used?

>The lack of comments in package.json is one of the biggest complaints of this format, and it's certainly not just me

Well then you and plenty of other people have some wrong ideas about package.json. That isn't surprising.

package.json gets rewritten for all kinds of things, which is not really compatible with adding comments wherever you want. Adding "why this dependency is here" comments may seem like a good idea to add to package.json, but you're kind of missing the point. If you need that level of documentation, trying to shoehorn it into package.json is just the wrong place for it. Soon enough your package.json looks like a graffiti wall.

>To be blunt, then, I can't believe you've ever written any code in a business (i.e. with multiple developers) in the Node/NPM ecosystem.

Then you'll be astonished that I have been working with nodejs for about 14 years professionally. Sure I have wanted to put comments into package.json, but I was naive and now I'm fine not doing that. I haven't wanted to in many years. I document things in other ways and it has served us all very well. YMMV.

> but I was naive and now I'm fine not doing that

Either https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance

Nice try, but no.

> if you need that level of documentation, trying to shoehorn it into package.json is just the wrong place for it. Soon enough your package.json looks like a graffiti wall.

So the right place is to make a graffiti out of another place, instead of in the place where people actually declare the dependencies?

I find it bizarre when people believe in one true way of doing things. I mean, you can declare your dependencies how you like, but if others do it differently, then they're clueless?

You're clueless if you think adding comments to package.json - a file that regularly gets rewritten - is anything but an exercise in futility. Any time you run "npm install [whatever]" you are rewriting package.json. How exactly do you expect to maintain your random comments in this case? You expect nodejs to understand how comments are being written in package.json and not mess that up? You don't seem to understand how npm or package.json works.

This is the silliest of circular logic. Of course you can't add comments to package.json, so tools can do whatever they want to the file. The fact that tools can rewrite parts of it doesn't mean they should just be able to do whatever they want. Literally every other single other config file format supports comments, and I have never seen a problem with tooling on those files due to the presence of comments.

> comment why they added a particular dependency to their project

Surely that's what the commit message is for? I mean, I get that it's more convenient to have the comment right there in the file, but that should be balanced against the downsides: having to maintain the comment, making the file larger and more awkward to read, etc.

Your rationale could apply to all comments in general. Hey, just have folks scour through the commit messages instead!

Yes, I still think a commit message is important, but it absolutely does not take the place of a comment. Suppose you'd like to do something like this:

    // DO NOT change to latest version. MUST pin to version 1.2.3 because
    // 1.2.4 includes a subtle bug that doesn't work with our version of
    // the zed library. We have an open issue on zed, see
    // https://github.com/zed/zed/issues/1234.
    // Once that is fixed, we can upgrade.
    "foobar": "1.2.3"

There is zero chance that comment is going to be seen if its just in a commit message, furthermore you should never depend on git blame showing a particular comment because it's easy for later commits to overwrite it due to simple things like formatting changes, etc. Yes, in that example case there should be tests too, but IMO the primary purpose for comments is to highlight issues and concerns that aren't immediately apparent just by reading the code.

I simply cannot think of another file format that is used for configs that doesn't support comments.

>There is zero chance that comment is going to be seen if its just in a commit message,

I never suggested using a commit message, there are plenty of other ways to document these things and I'll leave that up to the user to figure out.

So now you've written this tome of a comment in package.json. What happens the next time someone installs a package using npm install? package.json gets rewritten, that's what. Your comment will be gone. I suppose you expect npm to somehow use AI to guess at how to rewrite package.json so it can put your comments in the correct places??

And expecting someone to read package.json before updating or installing a library is just as useful as putting it in a commit message. If you really need to be careful about dependency versioning, you better have more safeguards in place than just a comment in package.json.

>I simply cannot think of another file format that is used for configs that doesn't support comments.

I mostly see configs created as .js or .ts files, where comments are allowed. Not package.json. Never package.json, because package.json is guaranteed to be rewritten regularly. But maybe you missed that part of your bootcamp class? Yes, .js files can be used as "config". It's been done in plenty of projects. It isn't the end of the world. JSON also isn't solely used for configs or data that needs comments, in fact the majority of use cases in the world for JSON won't need any comments at all so writing comments in package.json is kind of an edge-case.

>I simply cannot think of another file format that is used for configs that doesn't support comments.

JSON isn't only a config file format. It's primary use is data transfer.

> I never suggested using a commit message, there are plenty of other ways to document these things and I'll leave that up to the user to figure out.

Dude, I think you're lost, in more ways than one. I was directly responding to a comment that stated "Surely that's what the commit message is for?"

For the rest of your comment, at this point I'd rather have an argument with a dining room table. No shit you can't have comments in package.json now, that's the entire reason that issue https://github.com/npm/npm/issues/4482 is unfixable. If JSON supported comments from the beginning, then tooling would have to respect that, just like the bajillion other config file formats that support tooling that updates the config file programmatically.