Hacker News Reader

Comment by hungryhobbit | Hacker News Reader

Fundamentally you can't fix a lot of things with this approach.

Simple example: Node is the only serious OSS software I know of that has no way to document its config (in the config file itself). It's moronic! The Node people just adopted JSON without a thought, and then refused to consider any alternatives (even "JSON with comments").

When an organization digs into bad decisions, the only way to fix them is to start something new. The entire JS ecosystem will never have documentation on its config as long as everyone keeps building on top of Node.

(And there are many other issues like this in the Node ecosystem; the utter absurdity of not being able to document config is just my personal pet peeve.)

View on HN

> Simple example: Node is the only serious OSS software I know of that has no way to document its config (in the config file itself). It's moronic! The Node people just adopted JSON without a thought, and then refused to consider any alternatives (even "JSON with comments").

Tangential but this also drives me absolutely nuts. If I have to see `"//": "some comment"` one more time I'm gonna lose it.

> Simple example: [package.json is JSON]

Why can't you fix this while embracing existing tech? I can imagine monkeypatching Node & NPM to add support for JSONC or JSON5 or whatever in the same way that Nub adds various features via monkeypatching. Is there some architectural reason that can't work?

You'd need `npm publish` to compile it down to plain JSON when publishing, but that seems like an okay compromise.

Yeah stripping out comments at publish time would have been the smartest move. Keep in mind though that a git repo can be used as a package, so there isn't necessarily going to be an explicit publish step

EDIT: Sorry, I understand you're talking about package.json. Would be fun to try to get the Node & package mgmt teams aligned to add support for comments in the package.json. Bun tried and failed to do this (requires ecosystem coordination).

Nub could absolutely support a config file and use it to set NODE_OPTIONS or flags in the node child process. There's no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater due to DX concerns like this. That's a key part of the concept Nub is trying to prove. (To be clear I'm quite content to conform to Node's no-config-file policy at the moment.)

I agree that it sucks not being able to have comments in package.json, but I think it's the right call to not adopt something like jsonc. It would break so much tooling at this point I don't think it would be worth it.

Isn't this a problem contained to npm more than Node itself?

I'm imagining pnpm or others being able to adopt a package.json file that allows comments, then, when actually publishing, ensuring the published package.json is regular JSON.

No. Node.js uses package.json as well

Reply on news.ycombinator.com