This is the answer IMO. The number of targets and noise would be a lot less if JS had a decent stdlib or if we had access to a better language in the browser.

I have no hope of this ever happening and am abandoning the web as a platform for interactive applications in my own projects. I’d rather build native applications using SDL3 or anything else.

npmjs is the stdlib, or what emerged from it.

It started as CommonJs ([1]) with Server-side JavaScript (SSJS) runtimes like Helma, v8cgi, etc. before node.js even existed but then was soon totally dominated by node.js. The history of Server-side JavaScript btw is even longer than Java on the server side, starting with Netscape's LifeScript in 1996 I believe. Apart from the module-loading spec, the CommonJs initiative also specified concrete modules such as the interfaces for node.js/express.js HTTP "middlewares" you can plug as routes and for things like auth handlers (JSGI itself was inspired by Ruby's easy REST DSL).

The reason for is-array, left-pad, etc. is that people wanted to write idiomatic code rather than use idiosyncratic JS typechecking code everywhere and use other's people packages as good citizens in a quid pro quo way.

[1]: https://wiki.commonjs.org/wiki/CommonJS

Edit: the people crying for an "authority" to just impose a stdlib fail to understand that the JS ecosystem is a heterogeneous environment around a standardized language with multiple implementations; this concept seems lost on TypeScripters who need big daddy MS or other monopolist to sort it all out for them

Worth mentioning...

https://jsr.io/@std

Yes this is the fundamental problem.

It started with browsers giving you basically nothing. Someone had to invent jQuery 20 years ago for sensible DOM manipulation.

Somehow this ethos permeated into Node which also basically gives you nothing. Not even fundamental things like a router or db drivers which is why everyone is using Express, Fastify, etc. Bun and Deno are fixing this.

I just never got the argument against including things like the sort of text formatting tools and such that people always import libraries for. It’s not like an embedded system for mission-critical realtime applications where most functions people write for it get formal proofs — it’s freaking javascript. Sure it’s become a serious tool used for serious tasks for some reason, but come on.

But why can’t we have a good library instead of those mini thingies?

Not just a stdlib, lack of an SDK as well. Both Deno and Bun have decided to ship with tooling included, which cuts down on dev dependency bloat.

> Most people writing JavaScript code for employment cannot really program.

> As a proof ask any JavaScript team at your employment to build their next project without a large framework and just observe how they respond both verbally and non-verbally.

With an assumption like that, I bet the answer is mostly the same if you ask any Java/Python dev for example — build your next microservice/API without Spring or DRF/Flask.

Even though I only clock at about 5YOE, I'm really tired of hearing these terrible takes since I've met plentiful share of non-JS backend folks for example, who have no idea about basic API design, design patterns or even how to properly use the same framework they use for every single project.

> The responses vary but often take the form of reused cliches of which some don't even directly apply.

"It has been tested by a 1000 people before me"

"What if there is an upstream optimisation?"

"I'm just here to focus on Business Problems™"

"It reduces cognitive load"

---

Whilst I think you are exaggerating, I do recognise this phenomenon. For me, it was during the pandemic when I had to train / support a lot of bootcamp grads and new entrants to the career. They were anxious to perform in their new career and interpreted that as shipping tickets as fast as possible.

These developers were not dumb but they had... like, no drive at all to engage with problems. Most programmers should enjoy problems, not develop a kind of bad feeling behind the eyes, or a tightness in their chest. But for these folks, a problem was a threat, of a bad status update at their daily Scrum.

Dependencies are a socially condoned shortcut to that. You can use a library and look like a sensible and pragmatic engineer. When everyone around you appears to accept this as the norm, it's too easy to just go with the flow.

I think it is a change in the psychological demographic too. This will sound fanciful. But tech used to select for very independent, stubborn, disagreeable people. Now, agreeableness is king. And what is more agreeable than using dependencies?

Not my experience at all. It's more like a) JS devs view NPM packages as a mark of pride and so they try to make as many as possible (there are people proud of maintaining hundreds of packages, which is obviously dumb), and b) people are lazy and will take a ready-made solution if it's available, and c) there are a lot of JavaScript developers.

The main reasons you don't see this in other languages is they don't have so many developers, and their packaging ecosystems are generally waaay higher friction. Rust is just as easy, but way higher skill level. Python is... not awful but it's definitely still a pain to publish packages for. C++, yeah why even bother.

If Python ever official adopts uv and we get a nice `uv publish` command then you will absolutely see the same thing there.

If Javascript people were bad programmers, we wouldn't see two new frontend frameworks per year. Many of them are ambitious projects that must have had thousands of hours put in by people who know the language well.

The observation is real however. But every culture develops its own quirks and ideas, and for some reason this has just become a fundamental part of Javascript's. It's hard to know why after the fact, but perhaps it could spark the interest of sociologists who can enlighten us.

Glad to see someone else identify the anxiety at the root of the culture.

After an npm incident in 2020 I wrote up my thoughts. I argue that this anxiety is actually somewhat unique to JS which is why we don't see a similar culture in other languages ecosystems

https://crabmusket.net/java-scripts-ecosystem-is-uniquely-pa...

Basically, the sources of paranoia in the ecosystem are

1. Weak dynamic typing

2. Runtime (browser engineers) diversity and compatibility issues

3. Bundle size (the "physics" of code on a website)

In combination these three things have made JS's ecosystem really psychologically reliant on other people's code.

I don't quite know how to put this thought together yet, but I've noticed that no one quite hates programming more than this class of programmers. It's like playing on a football team with people who hate football.

A key phrase that comes up is "this is a solved problem." So what? You should want to solve it yourself, too. It's the PM's job to tell us not to.

Things like this are good illustrations as to why many feel that the entire JS ecosystem is broken. Even if you have a standard lib included in a language, you wouldn't expect a bigger binary because of the standard lib. The JS solution is often more duct tape on top of a bad design. In this case tree shaking, which may or may not work as intended.

Doesn’t the bundler already do tree shaking? Optimizing via dependency listing is very wrong.

Given how fat a modern website is, I am not sure that a kitchen sink library would change much. It could actually improve things because there would be fewer redundant libraries for basic functionality.

Say there is neoleftpad and megaleftpad - both could see widespread adoption, so you are transitively dependent on both.

Or the language is too braindead. `is-arrayish` should not even have to be a thing.

Then the question becomes, why do developers of larger libraries import someone else's module for every little trivial thing?

> You can pretend like this is unique to JS ecosystem, but xz was compromised for 3 years.

Okay, but you're not suggesting that a compression algorithm is the same scale as "is-arrayish". I don't think everyone should need to reimplement LZMA but installing a library to determine if a value is an array is bordering on satire.

A common refrain here seems to be that there is no good std lib, which makes sense for something like "chalk" (used for pretty printing?)

That being said, let's take color printing in terminal as an example. In any sane environment how complicated would that package have to be, and how much work would you expect it to take to maintain? To me the answer is "not much" and "basically never." There are pretty-print libraries for OS terminals written in compiled languages from 25 years ago that still work just fine.

So, what else is wrong with javascript dev where something as simple as coloring console text has 32 releases and 58 github contributors?

I wouldn't use debug or ansi-styles. They're not even remotely close to being worth adding a dependency. Obviously none of them are trustworthy now though.

It's telling that we keep remembering xz to this day, while npm has these incidents on what feels like every single week.

Rust is an interesting case to me.

There are certainly a lot of libraries on crates.io, but I’ve noticed more projects in that ecosystem are willing to push back and resist importing unproven crates for smaller tasks. Most imported crates seem to me to be for bigger functionality that would be otherwise tedious to maintain, not something like “is this variable an array”.

(Note that I’m not saying Rust and Cargo are completely immune to the issue here)

Not Java, thankfully! Libraries containing 1-2 trivial classes do exist, but they're an exception rather than a rule. Might be that the process of publishing to Maven Central is just convoluted enough to deter the kinds of people who would publish such libraries.

The difference, at least in languages like Java or Python, is that there is a pretty strong "standard" library that ships with the language, and which one can assume will be kept up-to-date. It is very hard to assume that for NPM or Rust or any other crowd-sourced library system.