1. 2

  2. 2

    Am I the only one to feel uneasy at the number of oddly named dependencies? It’s a bit ironic how in JavaScript having small libraries seems to be a feature, when most projects typically have dozens if not hundreds of dependencies. The naming of modules themselves would be of sociological interest too: choo, yo-yo, nanomoprh, bel – we’re at a time where naming a module seems to follow the same process as naming a new band. It’s a shame, though, as there is a lot of genuine innovation going on in the JS community, but the ninja-rockstar attitude makes it hard for me to consider any of these seriously. Or maybe I’m just turning into a grumpy old man…

    1. 9

      Heya, author here - sorry if my module names make you feel uneasy. It’s totally understandable that at a glance naming might seem confusing; many people write JS, and equally many approaches to naming things. This is generally how I name my things:

      Writing this out makes me realize it might indeed be hard to get into if you’re not already used to it. I agree discoverability can be much improved upon; both by tooling (e.g. GitHub allowing us to group things outside of orgs), and humans (your comment made me pause and reflect on this, thank you).

      I hope this somewhat explains how I (and perhaps some others) approach naming JS things (:

      1. 1

        I feel this is a toxic part of the JS community. I recently had to patch some nodejs code and searched “how to lower case a string”. The top suggestion was the fancy ChangeCase dependency when a simple String.ToLowerCase from the standard functions did the trick with no downloads required.