Removed 'standard' #629
Removed 'standard' #629
Conversation
|
It has more than 22k stars and used by more than 75k packages already. Its weekly download count is more than 200k. I really don't understand how it doesn't belong to this list, considering there're projects with less than 100 stars and a handful of downloads. I understand if you're angry at this ads bulls#it on terminal, but all parties took action already. npm fixed this on their end, logrocket and linode have pulled out. I -personally- don't use Standard. As you said, there're more mature and widely common alternatives, but it doesn't mean that I want it to be gone forever. He tried something, accepted the risk, and failed miserably. This doesn't mean we should also kick him. I hope this helps you to consider closing this pull request, and believe in open source and its power again. |
|
So this repo simply lists popular packages, and not strictly good/useful ones? |
|
It defines itself as
No body says there's only 'good' (which is a relative term anyway) or popular, or packages written by left-handed people, or any other filtering mechanism. This is a list of JS related content basically. Standard library, no matter if you hate it or not, falls into this bucket and deserves to be here. You cannot invalidate one thing by pointing another thing. Even if this was a list of 'good' (according to whom, we do not know, but let's do this thought experiment. bare with me) libraries, who decides what's good and what's not? More importantly, do you really think Standard is a bad project? I'm not asking if it's redundant or if it has other alternatives. Creator of Standard might be evil (which I don't agree with), but this doesn't effect the library's itself. For many many years, people hated Guido van Rossum and accused him being a benevolent dictator for life. People still hate Linus Torvalds. But this doesn't change the fact that their projects (esp. Python and Linux/Git) are not bad or useless. Again, I'm not using Standard in any of my projects, but I understand its value. Please try to do the same. |
The community does. This issue is that process in action. What other means would you suggest?
I think it's hardly useful for any serious endeavour. It is literally an ESLint config, wrapped in several npm packages. I think it has accumulated many of its users solely by its misleading name. I think many of the rules it enforces are misguided. I don't think it belongs in awesome-javascript, because most of the other resources the guide links to, are actually valuable. I wouldn't think twice before recommending them, whereas I would never recommend 'standard' to anyone.
I don't think this is a valid comparison, nor relevant to the discussion. Aside from the security implications, I don't care what Feross does. I care about this list and the quality of it's contents. |
|
Just to understand you better, if tomorrow someone introduces XO, it'll not end up in this list, right? It's relatively less known project with a little bit of less than 5k stars and nearly 20k usage btw. |
|
XO doesn't seem like something I'd hope to see on the list, no. The inclusion of ESLint should suffice, I don't see much value in promoting all (or any) of the configuration presets for it. (this is regardless of its stars or used bys. I don't think those are a good metric for determining "awesomeness") |
I'm removing this, because it doesn't belong in the list. The package is nothing more but an ESLint config, misleadingly named as "Standard", even though it's not a standard by any stretch.
Furthermore, the maintainer of this package has retroactively tried to extract value from users, by inserting terminal ads into the package's postinstall scripts, although they were removed shortly after, for violating NPM's ToC, as well as stirring a lot of controversy amongst the F/LOSS community.