Actually the most apt comparison here is if Bob sends over a contract for $1000, but then goes "oh no I'm sorry, I really meant $800"
There are not takebacks here.
Actually, I know there legally could be, as these situations aren't always black and white, however the company, being such a position of power compared to the employee, loses all goodwill in this situation. If I were in this situation, I would already be sending out feelers.
If you're not following those companies' offerings then it stands to reason you haven't heard about it but all three of them did broadcast pretty widely that they were using Deno, I would assume quite a few people were aware of this.
It's not a hot take, it's just a bad take, and a complete failure to understand the value proposition of these types of offerings (and why we're seeing so many of them pop up these days)
The whole conversation is a bit hard to follow, there was an issue initially, then this PR and then another Discussion that's linked somewhere in the PR. I'll let you go read those, I don't recall exactly what decisions were taken and what's the roadmap for this to become stable.
Dynamic imports are... wild, to say the least. Unfortunately they will always be inherently harder to secure, and will most likely always be treated differently than static import statements. At least that was the consensus in Deno.
Hi, I'm one of those people in the PR advocating for this change :) I think you may have missed the point of comparing the security aspects to NPM. By saying "it's no less secure" it's not saying "well it's just as bad, so what's the point?", but rather "given that it doesn't introduce any more vulnerabilities, what does this model unlock for us?"
HN comments probably aren't the best place to go in-depth on this topic, but just off the top of my head, HTTPS imports allow a greater detachment from a centralized registry, something we're seeing used a lot in the Go ecosystem, and we're moving server-side JavaScript closer to how browser JavaScript works, which is a good thing for anyone using the language, as it reduces friction across the board. This might not be something obvious for people working mostly/only on the backend, in which case those frictions aren't as apparent, but they are there nonetheless.
If you actually read the (admittedly long) thread, it's pretty clear that those imports are not resolved at runtime, and Deno has never evaluated imports at runtime either. Dependencies get evaluated and downloaded prior to startup, very similar to Go in fact.
> I’d argue URLs are fine until you get massive use of a single package and it weaves itself into a complex dependency tree across multiple other critical projects. Then you worry about the what if’s.
This is already an issue with npm. My personal take on this is that at that point that dependency should be vendored as much as possible but obviously it's hard to fight the existing inertia on this one. Also worth noting that the [std lib][1] is an attempt at a pragmatic solution to the problem where these foundational packages that are seemingly used by every framework out there essentially converges to the standard lib. I agree it's not perfect at the moment but it's a start.
deno.land/x is _not_ a central registry. It's something we maintain as a convenience to the community, but we actually go to great lengths to make sure it doesn't receive preferential treatment from the CLI. Importing modules from nest.land, skypack.dev, esm.sh or jspm.io is common in the ecosystem and is something we're looking to keep encouraging.
It's also pretty easy to vendor in your dependencies so that they don't move between the time you commit and the time your server starts. We also support lock files so you don't _have_ to vendor your deps too. Versioning is up to the server you import from, but typically you'd put version in the URL somewhere (ideally a pinned version).
Security-wise, There are other articles out there that detail this but it's not fundamentally less secure than importing from npm as you're still pulling a JavaScript file from the internet in both cases. The cool thing here with URLs is that it's pretty easy to audit and create an allowlist of known-good and trusted servers to import from in your org.
As for vulnerability reporting & patching; I think we're still lacking a good vulnerability database, that much is true, but fixing deeply integrated deps that have vulnerabilities is pretty easy using import maps really.
Transpiling TS to JS on startup does incur a cold start penalty, you can minimize it by using the `--no-check` option to transpile with SWC instead of TSC but it's still there. On subsequent runs though, it'll start up instantly because the JS is cached locally after transpiling (you can even trigger this step yourself with `deno cache`)
Beyond that, you still have the v8 engine running the JS, so yeah in most cases performance will be pretty much what you can expect from Node _except_ with regards to anything that reaches out of the sandbox (like filesystem or network access). These APIs are handled completely differently outside of v8, with Deno relying on a lot of Rust packages, and Promise-based APIs all the way down. For the builtin HTTP server for example you can expect higher throughput from Deno. Tail latencies also tend to be better with Deno.
You're not immediately going to get "blazing fast, native speeds" but you can get some nice optimizations.
> Prometheus has a pull model, which I can see the appeal of, but I don't really like.
That's such an antiquated statement at this point. Prometheus might have been pull-only in a distant past, but the remote write protocol has been alive and well for a long time now, and it works amazingly well, at surprising scale.
There are not takebacks here.
Actually, I know there legally could be, as these situations aren't always black and white, however the company, being such a position of power compared to the employee, loses all goodwill in this situation. If I were in this situation, I would already be sending out feelers.