An unopinionated approach like Bower is probably what the (client-side) JavaScript ecosystem needs, but all the same, what's lacking here is a philosophy.
What I mean: if I'm just using jQuery and two or three other JavaScript libraries, downloading those manually isn't a big ordeal, they're single files, already minified for my convenience, available on a public CDN if I want to use that in production, they usually have no dependencies themselves and I'm only inclined to update them to newer version if something doesn't work, which is hardly ever. All of these things make package management for the server a godsend but package management for the client sort of... meh.
Ender, on the other hand (and for all its flaws) does a good job of explaining how you can use it to approach libraries for the client more like you'd approach them on the server: tiny packages that do one thing well and that don't reinvent the wheel but where applicable build on existing libraries. Now that sounds like something I can get behind.
Similarly, if you read TJ Holowaychuk's ideas on package management in the browser (linked to by kreutz below, or at http://tjholowaychuk.com/post/27984551477/components) then you start to get an idea of, yeah, maybe it'd be cool to have these packages that are little bundles of HTML, CSS and JavaScript and together they make up a single interface element or something of the sort -- included in your project as-needed. Fascinating.
Bower, by comparison, sounds like "a thing that downloads things for me." It might just be the copy (rather than the idea) and maybe it's the tool we need to do what someone like TJ envisions, but it's not clicking for me right now.
Does anyone think this can finally be the tool to bring sane package management to client side JavaScript development? I'm hesitant to use any of the existing tools because none of them support all the libraries I use, so I'd end up doing stuff manually anyway, and I don't have any confidence that any of them will keep working in the long term.
No. If anything, it will probably just get even more fragmented before the situation gets better. As we understand the features and architectures of package management systems better it becomes even easier to write package managers. This is a good thing long-term because we can more thoroughly explore the solution space before settling on a few "winners". However, at the same time package repositories are fundamentally a network effects problem because packages depend upon other packages, so the repository with the most packages offers the most benefit for each additional package because new packages can build on everything that already exists instead of bundling that functionality themselves.
The reason why I am skeptical of new entrants into the javascript package management arena is that there is already a package manager with over 14k packages and a vibrant community that is producing packages at a very high rate: npm. npm might not be the best package manager as-is for browser development, but tools like browserify (disclaimer: I wrote browserify), ender, or many others can let your browser code use much of the value that has already been created for npm, even though npm is primarily about node.js packages. A surprising number of modules written for node will just work in tools like browserify.
Any upstart package systems would be wise to have a clear and simple path for unlocking the value created in the node community because there is too much value being created in npm to ignore. Whether that path involves adding fields to the package.json, tools to bridge the gap between package repositories, fancy in-browser trickery or compile steps remains an open question but it would be really pointless to require people to publish their modules that they've already put on npm to buy in to yet another package system, especially since there seems to be a new package manager every month lately.
but dep management in the browser is still so different then the npm workflow. it's not just code you have to worry about, it's css/html/static resources
Well, RequireJS is pretty solid for client side package management. With solid config files you can build out large client side applications that grab dependencies asynchronously, and it DOES work with everything.
... so long as you wrap all the files in the particular variant of define() function that works with requirejs (but not with other competing AMD function signatures). And then you might want to use some modules written for commonjs or node with `exports`, so you'll need a tool to transform those files. And then you'll probably want to compile the application into a single javascript bundle in production for performance.
I'm not saying bower is any better in any of these respects, just that everything is terrible.
Nope, RequireJS can load any kind of Javascript dependency, even if it doesn't use the AMD format. You can even specify dependencies for non-AMD scripts in the configuration object.[0]
As for define(), there's only one AMD method signature: define([[name,] deps,] fn). Any loader that does not accept this signature cannot legitimately call itself an AMD loader.
So first I can install node and npm through my system package managed, then I can install bower through the node package manager, then I can finally install libraries with the bower package manager.
Actually, the web URL you're looking for is https://github.com/components/jquery (note the "components" vs "component"), which does seem to be officially associated based on the members of the "components" organization.
I'd definitely defend bower here, there's no reason to use npm for this, it just makes things confusing and ambiguous, and leads to stupid suffices or prefixes like the several "-component" modules I have
Indeed. I was disappointed that the two prior submissions by other folks (the other was of the direct repository page) both had 0 comments. Figured I would resubmit it anyway during a more active time, given that it's genuinely worthy of discussion.
I thought so too but then scrolled down more — the design of the page made me think it was just a splash but there's tons of details underneath the big header. :/
That's because without using GitHub, Bower's packages aren't namespaced. This was something discussed at length on the component spec github.
It sure feels like Twitter is avoiding giving credit where credit is due. No links to the component.json spec or any mention of TJ Holowaychuk's component feels smarmy to me.
His name is listed in the README. I think the next level of recognition would have been for him to contribute code, and for whatever reason, that didn't happen. It could be because TJ is busy doing other things, because development was closed, or because they disagreed on things, or a combination of reasons.
I looked at the source and found that the initial public commit contains 79 files.
I had a bit of a different thing in mind, my implementation is here https://github.com/component/component, it's certainly more opinionated, more of a framework almost, but solves more problems (of mine at least)
The build is failing because there are a lot of moving parts at this early stage regarding the internals; however, the basics from a usage standpoint work just fine right now.
In other words, the build failing is not ideal; but don't get too hung up on it right now.
As part of the 99% of developers who work for other people, I resent troll-bait comments like this.
Twitter, in addition to being a genuinely interesting social phenomenon, has always posed technical challenges that were sufficiently interesting to attract some top-notch people. Give them the respect of judging them by their technical work, and not their employer's latest unpopular business decision.
What I mean: if I'm just using jQuery and two or three other JavaScript libraries, downloading those manually isn't a big ordeal, they're single files, already minified for my convenience, available on a public CDN if I want to use that in production, they usually have no dependencies themselves and I'm only inclined to update them to newer version if something doesn't work, which is hardly ever. All of these things make package management for the server a godsend but package management for the client sort of... meh.
Ender, on the other hand (and for all its flaws) does a good job of explaining how you can use it to approach libraries for the client more like you'd approach them on the server: tiny packages that do one thing well and that don't reinvent the wheel but where applicable build on existing libraries. Now that sounds like something I can get behind.
Similarly, if you read TJ Holowaychuk's ideas on package management in the browser (linked to by kreutz below, or at http://tjholowaychuk.com/post/27984551477/components) then you start to get an idea of, yeah, maybe it'd be cool to have these packages that are little bundles of HTML, CSS and JavaScript and together they make up a single interface element or something of the sort -- included in your project as-needed. Fascinating.
Bower, by comparison, sounds like "a thing that downloads things for me." It might just be the copy (rather than the idea) and maybe it's the tool we need to do what someone like TJ envisions, but it's not clicking for me right now.