←back to thread

272 points abdisalan | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
mvkel ◴[] No.42175730[source]
> time to run it after not touching it for 4 years

> Two hours of my life gone...

Two hours of work after 4 years sounds ... perfectly acceptable?

And it would have run perfectly right away if the node version was specified, so a good learning, too

This feels like making a mountain out of a mole hill

replies(21): >>42175799 #>>42175818 #>>42175826 #>>42175846 #>>42176217 #>>42176305 #>>42176788 #>>42176958 #>>42181497 #>>42182299 #>>42182564 #>>42182778 #>>42183020 #>>42183093 #>>42183501 #>>42183725 #>>42184814 #>>42192770 #>>42193606 #>>42194518 #>>42211558 #
mattgreenrocks ◴[] No.42175799[source]
Other ecosystems usually do not have problems to the extent the author had.
replies(2): >>42175953 #>>42177000 #
Supermancho ◴[] No.42177000[source]
Maybe they can try to get the node version into the package-lock tomorrow? This seems like an opportunity to improve the ecosystem, rather than a biting critique.
replies(1): >>42177145 #
cxr ◴[] No.42177145[source]
Or, instead of responding to sunk costs by getting sunk deeper into the muck, just cut your losses, ditch Node and its proprietary/non-standard APIs and unstable featureset, and use a standard runtime.

The author of the blog post is trying to run a static site generator. A static site generator doesn't need to be able to do anything that Node provides that can't be done with the World Wide Wruntime (which they're already going to use to verify the correctness of the SSG output). So use that runtime and tools that target it, not Node.

replies(2): >>42242802 #>>42278890 #
1. ◴[] No.42242802[source]