[sebastianmck]

Considering this is just a source code dump and call for possible contributors I'm disappointed it was even posted to Hacker News. Rome is not ready at all for public consumption. I wanted it open sourced so I could work with other tooling authors and contributors.

[oefrha]

Would you mind commenting on what it intends to be and what its value propositions would be when it's eventually ready for public consumption? An opinionated all-in-one platform?

[pts_]

It says so right in the readme. It's a formatter, linter, bundler, compiler(transpiler?) all in one.

[oefrha]

I’m looking for something more specific than that. To go to such great lengths, the value propositions have to be more than just bundling a few things together. (And I did read the project philosophy section.)

[jiofih]

If you’ve used Metro or Webpack before there is very little explaining to do. The existing tooling is bloated, fragmented (think 40k deps) and slow, and the experience of sewing it all together and keeping it in one piece extremely frustrating.

[Vinnl]

I don't think "less bloated/fragmented/slow Webpack and co" is what sebmck intends its USP to be. It sounds more like he expects there to be some advantages to arise specifically from a single tool doing everything related to processing source code, e.g. the linter being able to catch bugs by also being aware of how code will end up after bundling.

It would be interesting to see examples of specific such advantages that could be gained, because I'm having a hard time thinking of any.

[oefrha]

I have, but there’s still a lot of explaining to do. E.g., what’s the extensibility story? To do anything remotely useful with webpack you need to install a million loaders and plugins, but the plugin architecture also lets you do a lot that can’t be done with opinionated bundlers. So, what’s Rome’s approach to this? Enumerating existing tooling’s problems does not automatically guarantee something better.

[hn_throwaway_99]

The author has commented that this isn't yet ready for public consumption, but is instead just a call for other possible contributors to the project. So:

1. Everything you seem to be asking for seems like it is not relevant at this point in the project's lifecycle. 2. IMO people who are capable of providing good contributions don't actually need what you are asking for. They can review the README as is, review the source code, etc.

In short, patience.

[95th]

I think Deno has the same concept.

[mst]

I remember many years back uploading a module to CPAN at version 0.001001 with docs that said "actual docs not written yet, this release was made so other cpan authors I was talking to could experiment more easily".

Two days later I got a one-star review on the now-defunct cpanratings site complaining about the lack of documentation.

[OJFord]

Seriously? I can't think of a better way to 'call for possible contributors'.

[girvo]

I’m pretty sure they meant reaching directly out to other tooling authors, rather than the general public

[OJFord]

It's a public repo under a Facebook org; it's bound to be picked up on Reddit if it hasn't been already.

Personally, HN would be my go-to if I had a project to show and for which I was hoping for some high-quality collaboration.

If by 'reaching directly out' you mean contacting specific people, then it shouldn't be a public repo. Like I said, it's under a Facebook org, of course others will find it.

[Chris2048]

I don't think HN is general public

[traverseda]

Well it wasn't built in a day.