Tuesday, May 28, 2013

A Pox On Both Your Package Managers!

I love the package managers available for web developers.  It is such a relief from the pain of copying scripts around a few years ago.  But they also have me quite frustrated now that i am trying to publish some packages i've developed for ESHA Research.  Basically, finding available names to publish under now requires a thesaurus or bad conventions like version numbers in names or ".js" suffixes.

Bower and NPM, all of your packages should have forced producers to use namespaces by default from the start.

Shouldn't this have been obvious?  If you want your package manager to succeed, you need a lot of packages.  If you want a lot of packages, you need a lot of available package names.  People want to use names that are easy to remember and to discover.  There are not many of those that pertain to javascript or web development.  And you can only get so creative with synonyms and clever abbreviations before they become hard to remember and discover.  Therefore, no namespace means fewer packages or packages with worse names.

Namespaces not only create more space for names that are simple and preferred. They create space for reputation development.  People learn to recognize quality sources.  It's good for creators to have their own brand highlighted.  It's good for users to have confidence in the creators.

There are workarounds.  You can prefix all of your package names.  But this doesn't have quite the same effect.  Calling your package "company-package" is a functional solution, but it comes with a price.  It lacks the aesthetic appeal of "package".  Users will gravitate toward the one that appears simpler, cleaner, and lamest of all, quicker to type.  This is not good for the ecosystem.  It can both discourage competitors and promote inferior packages.  Only forcing namespaces upon everyone (like GitHub does) can alleviate such counter-productive biases.

And when they finally come around and add a namespace field to package.json or bower.json, it will have the same problem as the workarounds if they do not force it to be present or automatically fill it in, either from GitHub (home to vast numbers of package sources) or by "doubling" (e.g. package/package).  In fact, the latter is probably the best option.  It makes backward compatibility easy and reverses the advantage early name claimers had by dating them.

However it is done, this change must come.  I've been working in open ecosystems long enough to have seen mistakes like this and the inevitable correction before (Maven).  I just hope it comes sooner than later.  And in the meantime, as i push more packages from our company out there i will probably have to suffer with an "esha-" prefix for the rest of them.  I've already run through a fair bit of the thesaurus for a few of them, with little luck in finding acceptable names.

Remember, kids: NO REPOSITORY IS COMPLETE WITHOUT PROPER NAMESPACING!

Update: Isaac Shlueter was kind enough to point me to a discussion of NPM's global namespacing on their mailing list.  It seems to me now that i have been mistaken to see NPM as a general javascript package repository.  It works as a general package manager, especially with the ability to install straight from GitHub, but as a repository they value discoverability and clarity over simplicity and competition. This limits their usefulness in client development but has, they feel, enhanced it for NodeJS users.  I still suspect this will some day change due to the friction of their intentional scarcity, but we'll see.