woess
commented
1 week ago Our goal with GraalNodeJS is to provide a drop-in replacement for Node.js. Therefore, we keep the same executable names, so that users, programs, and tools can rely on the usual node, npm, and npx commands (without a separate Node.js installation). Renaming those commands may break some use cases (or at least require extra steps to run).
Since graaljs cannot completely replace nodejs at present, we still need to use nodejs. If we use graaljs to cover nodejs, some programs will not run.
Can you elaborate which programs or packages will not run? We're aiming for full compatibility with the Node.js version we're based on. If some package you're interested in does not work, please report it and we will try to fix it.
why should GraalVM's GraalJS be compatible with NodeJS, instead of becoming another implementation of JS like Deno?
See above. It isn't our goal to provide another Node.js alternative.
alamhubb
Since graaljs cannot completely replace nodejs at present, we still need to use nodejs. If we use graaljs to cover nodejs, some programs will not run. When I only want to use graaljs on a certain project, using nodejs to cover graaljs is not a good choice. Can you provide a separate graaljs command? Do you also need to provide a separate graalnpm command?
Another implementation of javascript is deno, which provides a separate deno command and does not cover the node command.
At this point, another question came to my mind: why should GraalVM's GraalJS be compatible with NodeJS, instead of becoming another implementation of JS like Deno?
Just a little thought from a beginner who doesn't know much about graalvm. I hope to get a reply. I apologize if I disturb you.