Hacker News Reader

Comment by c2h5oh | Hacker News Reader

They are not, but npm is uniquely bad in that regard. Refusal to implement security features that would have made attacks like this harder really doesn't help https://github.com/node-forward/discussions/issues/29

View on HN

The lack of a comprehensive standard library for JavaScript also results in projects pulling many more third party dependencies than you would with most other modern environments. It’s just a bigger attack surface. And if you can compromise a module used for basic functionality that you’d get out of the box elsewhere, the blast radius will be enormous.

Not to mention a culture of basically one-line packages ad infinitum. I downloaded a JS tool the other day to generate test reports and it had around 300 dependencies.

Needless to say I’m running all my JS tools in a Docker container these days.

So why hasn’t someone created a batteries include JS library? I don’t program in JS on the backend so I don’t know how feasible something like that is.

https://github.com/stdlib-js/stdlib was is one of several attempts at that, but yes the issue is that different people have very different views of what should be standard.

That doesn't seem like it should be an issue in practice? Rather than a single standard library endorsed by the language stewards if the community at large converges on a small handful of "standard" solutions that seems like it would satisfy the security aspect of things.

Everyone’s ideas of what batteries should be included differ

I, for one, root for AAA

*cries in ghettoblaster and Maglite D cells*

Lodash but also, which batteries?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com