[cxr]

> the javascript ecosystem is node

It's not. NodeJS is NodeJS. JavaScript is JavaScript.

The James Webb Space Telescope isn't running Node LTS or pulling in left-pad.

If you want to make a lateral move and draw comparisons elsewhere: the Java ecosystem is not Sun/Oracle's mobile platform—which never took off, while Android thrives. Languages are absolutely separable from the big loud noisemaker (and the problems they bring with them).

As for build toolchains: even taking the comment that "if you only do web work now you still need node for the build toolchain" charitably, we could understand it to mean that NodeJS-based toolchains save you time, rather than that you strictly need them in a literal sense. Even that argument is dubious. It's worth considering, if people spent half as much time working on the drudge work that these toolchains are ostensibly supposed to be saving them time on, instead of dealing with the dysfunction that comes with these tools, where might they be? Ivan is doing a-okay with Photopea despite repudiating basically everything about NodeJS.

In practice, those toolchains have proven to be a false economy for many circumstances where they end up being (mis)used. More honestly, they're shiny distractions that people put at the forefront of their attention because that's what they like doing—and they're willing to lie to themselves by saying they're doing something essential.

> You can't realistically develop without it

Sorry, bud, this is wildly exaggerated. It's simple bullshit. I won't concede to such an argument that doesn't have a firm basis in truth.

Or, if you want a pithy rejoinder, here's one: "You can't realistically develop with it!"[1]

Firefox is one of the most advanced early codebases that made extensive use of JS for serious use—and still more serious than many of the things that people are writing in JS today—and there was no use of NPM—because neither it nor NodeJS (nor V8!) even existed yet.

1. <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24495646>

[xnorswap]

But when I say "javascript ecosystem", I'm talking about Node, and that's clear from my writing.

I don't care for pedantry about what it might also refer to, I'm talking about NodeJS, npm and the problems with it, and that's clear because that's also what the original article is talking about.

[cxr]

> when I say "javascript ecosystem", I'm talking about Node

Can you change your habits?

> I'm talking about NodeJS, npm and the problems with it

So how about just saying that?

> and that's clear

It's not. A person doesn't have to go all in on Sapir–Whorf to recognize that this is fraught with peril.

The original article that you fall back on for support doesn't even agree with you; the argument that the author makes (explicitly, even) is that this actually is a JS-and-not-just-NodeJS problem.

Nor do your earlier remarks agree; you're ignoring now the pushback on your earlier remarks that escape is essentially/almost "impossible". Feels like you're going for a motte-and-bailey here (a type of bait-and-switch argument; see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy>).