Kind of goes without saying, but the flip side of having all of these tools under a single opinionated umbrella is that if any piece of it sucks, people are going to drop the whole toolchain. Hence this is a high risk project, especially because everything is being built from scratch.
There’s a constantly swinging pendulum between “one tool to rule it all” and “bring your own tool.” Newcomers to an ecosystem get tired learning all the accumulated toolchain and want to build a thing to solve every problem. But it is always easier to build a tool that does only one thing, and gradually people replace each part of that one tool with better standalone tools, the ecosystem disintegrates into pieces. The cycle goes on. There’s no right or wrong, only nature.
I tried learning this; there wasn't documentation on even the most basic of commands, `rome develop`, which failed. Sounds like a cool project, but the learning resources are really not there.
Is anyone taking Deno seriously? I try to follow the latest trends in front-end development, and I haven't heard anything about Deno for a while. It didn't sound very attractive when I read about it, and I'm not excited about switching. I'll begrudgingly start using it if the community decides that it's better. Their dependency management idea also seems pretty bad to me, and it would be difficult to maintain. NPM + Snowpack [1] feels like a much better system.
I think Node.js is probably going to stay the winner for now, but that might just be me.
Everyone should take deno seriously, at this point imho it is pretty clear that nodejs is legacy and deno the future. It will not happen tomorrow of course as especially tooling and the nodejs compatibility layer has a long way to go but never dealing with node_modules again and a sound security model as well as web apis instead of custom nodejs ones is allready enough to make it killer, on top there is the integrated typescript runtime of course...
Thanks for your comment, and I'm glad to see that you are excited about it! I personally won't be an early adopter and I don't want to do any of the work, but it would be great if lots of people get on board. I'm personally really happy with the current state of JS tooling, and I think node_modules are generally great and work fine. So I'm not too convinced about Rome or deno.
I'm personally looking forward to building a new toy project with Svelte, Sapper, Tailwind CSS, and Snowpack (with TypeScript, Node.JS, and NPM.) This still feels like the future to me.
That's totally fine and happy you have something you feel at home with, not everyone needs to be an early adopter and i would never advice people to jump on something when they think it might be a hype train but only when they see real advantage. The js ecosystem is famously evolving too fast to keep on top all the time anyways, we should also be allowed to relax and refine. By the way i think no one expects you to migrate your existing healthy projects to deno currently anyways. The current adoption cycle is at adopting js libraries like svelte to support js modules and deno, switching to deno for one shot scripts and new command line tools, developing replacements for basic nodejs libraries that dont make sense in deno or seem too archaic and building smaller internal tools and apps in deno and while doing so evolve the workflows, tools and best practices every step in the way. Especially importmap support and workflows need some evolving...
As an aside, Sapper in particular is probably not the future, as there’s been an unofficial announcement[1] that it will be replaced with file-based routing built in to the Svelte app template.
When I try and check out their new page linked from here, I'm getting a certificate error. It looks like it's only issued for Netlify subdomains. Minor, but kinda annoying.
One question I have about Rome is why it tries to take on the testing framework too. I really like the idea of it having all the build tooling together, but testing seems like a sort of separate thing. Other environments I've used let libraries fill the gaps for testing, including JS. Is there a big advantage to pulling it into Rome?
If you look at configuring a tool like Jest, there's a ton of "build tool" overlap, typically involving configuring Babel/TypeScript, parsing, path aliases, and so on. In particular, you usually have duplicate configuration for Jest and Webpack for all those things, but with completely different config file formats. Test runners also need to be able to iterate over files, run checks, and print diagnostics.
Those all sound like things that Rome has the ability to do already, _and_ it's another tool that Rome could eliminate from a typical install.
I'm not planning to switch to Rome any time soon, but I definitely understand the mindset involved in that approach.
This is a weird peculiarity of the JS ecosystem. The rest of programming ecosystems do not have dozens of tools all doing a build for you. When you run tests in C you do not use a special cli testing tool that also compiles your project... You just run cc on your test files and run it like everything else. Why JS prefers hiding the build I'll never understand.
Not really: dynamic languages (Python, Ruby, PHP) also have special cli testing tools just like JS, and that's where JS got inspiration from. What makes JS different is that it started having a compilation phase along the way, so both approaches hat to be combined.
Not sure I agree with that statement. For example, I know that nUnit and jUnit are test runners for the .NET and Java ecosystems, and both of those are also runnable via the CLI.
As for the JS ecosystem, it's definitely developed differently than other languages, because it deals with a very different set of constraints. See this article for background explanation (which also links to further reading)
You absolutely have this in the Java ecosystem also. Maven or Gradle + IDE plugins that need to be configured for most projects.
Python too, it's lessened by the fact that you can usually skips the build test, but there's often tox, pytest, setup.py, and coverage.py configuration in even simple projects.
That's a good point, and one that I've forgotten since I've been out of the JS world for a while now! Often you're trying to run the code in different environments depending on the context, which does require a lot of extra build tool support. Consolidating that is a reasonable goal, I'd say.
It will be neat to see where they draw the line. For example, will Rome include an assertion library? What about mock and fake support? That feels a bit far from what Rome is trying to do, but if they've implemented a test runner, maybe defaults provided would be good for the DX?
_That_ is an excellent question, and I honestly have no idea what their plans are in that respect :) I've seen a number of Sebastian's tweets over the last couple years as he was working on Rome, and have glanced at the repo README, but haven't poked at the actual work they're doing.
Part of the sales pitch for Jest is that it includes a set of APIs for mocking and assertions built in. Wouldn't surprise me if Rome did the same, but curious how they'd design things.
It will probably include module-mocking in it (aka jest.mock), since it happens during "bundling"/compilation, but the assertion and function mocking can certainly be handled by a third-party library.
I guess the argument is that testing is very often another piece of the "developer experience" of a project, akin to linting or compilation. It makes some amount of sense to me, although I see where you're coming from.
Right. I'm genuinely not trying to make a judgement on the choice - it's just not the choice I'm used to seeing, including in JS environments. So it seems like there must be some reasoning behind it.
I suppose that's true! Practically speaking, it would be nice to have one testing framework to learn and use over-and-over again, but that's also kinda counter to what I'm used to in the JS world.
I am very pleased with Webpack, but it definitely shows its roots as a specifically javascript bundler with other formats hacked on top. For instance, while one can have a `.css` file or `.html` file as an entry point, Webpack will nevertheless output a `.js` file with the same name for every entrypoint.
Nothing has materially changed since the release announcement.