bun package manager: accept package.yaml instead package.json

[masterwendu]

What is the problem this feature would solve?

json is not the perfect config file format. The most pain for me is that you cannot add comments.

YAML would be a much nicer option in my opinion and it has a similar structure like JSON. So a migration would be pretty fast.

benefits of a package.yaml as option:

• add comments
• faster to write config, because you don´t have to use " and {, }
• multiline option
• better overview of the file

disadvantages:

• project with a package.yaml won´t have npm support anymore

What is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?

bun install and bun add supports to work with package.yaml out of the box.

A plus would be if bun could also provide a json to yaml migration feature and visa versa (if I want to switch back to npm)

What alternatives have you considered?

package.toml would also be an option

[Jarred-Sumner]

I definitely agree that json isn't perfect. It's missing features like comments and trailing commas. But syntax doesn't add enough value to justify the ecosystem cost of a decision like this. You could use a build tool that converts your package.toml or package.yaml into another format ahead of time into a package.json though

[hzamir]

pnpm supports package.yaml (though not perfectly it resolves and reads them). I would not like to go back. I know exactly why every package is included and generating package.jsons just in time is a bit of a pain.