[nine_k]

Having a module for every little trivial thing allows you to only bring these modules inside the JS bundle you serve to your client. If there's a problem in one trivial-thing function, other unrelated trivial things can still be used, because they are not bundled in the same package.

A comprehensive library might offer a more neat DX, but you'd have to ship library code you don't use. (Yes, tree-shaking exists, but still is tricky and not widespread.)

[palmfacehn]

Things like this are good illustrations as to why many feel that the entire JS ecosystem is broken. Even if you have a standard lib included in a language, you wouldn't expect a bigger binary because of the standard lib. The JS solution is often more duct tape on top of a bad design. In this case tree shaking, which may or may not work as intended.

[crabmusket]

I agree with you, but I'd ask- what other language needs to distribute to an unknown runtime environment over the network?

If it's the browser's job to implement the standard library, how do you ensure that all browsers do this in a compliant and timely fashion? And if not, how do you optimise code-on-demand delivery over the internet?

I don't deny there are/could be solutions to this. But historically JS devs have wrestled with these issues as best they can and that has shaped what we see today.

[skydhash]

> what other language needs to distribute to an unknown runtime environment over the network?

What is this unknown runtime environment? Even during the browser war, there was just an handful of browsers. And IE was the only major outlier. Checking the existence of features and polyfilling is not that complicated.

And most time, the browser is already downloading lot of images and other resources. Arguing about bundle size is very hypocritical of developers that won't blink at adding 17 analytics modules.

[crabmusket]

> Checking the existence of features and polyfilling is not that complicated.

Judging by what we see in the world, most developers don't agree with you. And neither do I. A handful of browsers, multiplied by many versions per browser in the wild (before evergreen browsers like Chrome became widespread, but even today with e.g. Safari, or enterprise users), multiplied by a sprawling API surface (dare I say it, a standard library) is not trivial. And that's not even considering browser bugs and regressions.

> very hypocritical of developers that won't blink

Not a great argument, as developers don't necessarily get to choose how to add analytics, and plenty of them try to push back against doing so.

Also, the cost of parsing and JIT'ing JS code is byte-for-byte different to the cost of decoding an image.

[skydhash]

> Judging by what we see in the world, most developers don't agree with you. And neither do I.

From my POV, most developers just test on the most popular browser (and the latest version of that) without checking if the API is standard or its changelog. Or they do dev on the most powerful laptop while the rest of the world is still on 8gb, FHD screen with integrated gpu.

[typpilol]

Explain browser defaults to non JavaScript people is kind of eye opening I've found

[palmfacehn]

A batteries included standard lib included with the runtime is one approach. Yes, you would know upfront the version which the browser implements. From there you could dynamically load a polyfill or prompt the user to upgrade.

Alternatively, because there are now (often ridiculous) build systems and compilation steps, we might expect similar behavior to other compiled binaries. Instead we get the worst of both worlds.

Yes, JS as it is is some kind of standard, but at a certain point we might ask, "Why not throw out the bad designs and start from scratch?" If it takes ten years to sunset the garbage and offer a compatibility shim, that's fine. All the more reason to start now.

A purely compiled WASM approach with first class DOM access or a clean scripting language with a versioned standard lib, either option would be better than the status quo.

[crabmusket]

> A purely compiled WASM approach

I would love to see if a browser could like... "disaggregate" itself into WASM modules. E.g. why couldn't new JS standards be implemented in WASM and hot loaded into the browser itself from a trusted distributor when necessary?

Missing CSS Level 5 selectors? Browser goes and grabs the reference implementation from the W3C.

Low-level implementations could replace these for the browsers with the most demanding performance goals, but "everyone else" could benefit from at least remaining spec compatible?

(I guess this begs the question of "what's the API that these WASM modules all have to conform to" but I dunno, I find it an interesting thought.)

[palmfacehn]

Yes, that would be a compelling change. Like a language agnostic HotJava platform. We're overdue for a more coherent approach, from the bottom up.

[int_19h]

> how do you ensure that all browsers do this in a compliant and timely fashion?

The ecosystem somehow manages to figure this out for things like fancy CSS gradients...

[nine_k]

This is because you cannot easily remove problematic stuff from the browser. It's actively being used by someone, so the vendors keep it, so it continues to be used. The process takes decades, literally.

On the server side, of course, you can do whatever you like, see Node / Deno / Bun. But the code bundle size plays a minor role there.

[skydhash]

Doesn’t the bundler already do tree shaking? Optimizing via dependency listing is very wrong.

[tracker1]

Tree shaking is less than reliable... for it to work well, all the dependencies need to be TS/ESModule imports/exports and even then may not shake out properly.

It helps, but not as much as judicious imports. I've been using Deno more for my personal projects which does have a pretty good @std library, though I do think they should keep methods that simply pass through to the Deno runtime, and should probably support working in Node and Bun as well.

[0cf8612b2e1e]

Given how fat a modern website is, I am not sure that a kitchen sink library would change much. It could actually improve things because there would be fewer redundant libraries for basic functionality.

Say there is neoleftpad and megaleftpad - both could see widespread adoption, so you are transitively dependent on both.

[palmfacehn]

There's also the option of including that standard lib with the runtime.

[9dev]

And never ever be able to correct your past mistakes, because some sites might still be using them? The web platform is no .NET runtime you can just update.

[int_19h]

Web browsers update far more often than .NET runtime, if anything. And .NET still supports a lot of deprecated stuff going all the way back to 1.0; so does Java (old-style collections, for example).

Also, JavaScript is a shining example of "never ever be able to correct your past mistakes" already, so it's not like this is something new for the web.

[crabmusket]

That is exactly what happens today. JS has a standard library. It's just not evenly distributed.

[int_19h]

JS standard library is missing very basic things like maps with value semantics for keys that aren't primitives.