Open Gn3po4g opened 1 month ago
This would be a very expensive decision in performance and in ecosystem compatibility
What value would it provide?
For example, a configuration
[install]
location = 'bun_modules' //default node_modules
I don't think it would make a big difference with the default value of node_modules
.
The reason I suggested is that the filename node_modules
is a bit strange if you develop with bun environment.
For example, a configuration
[install] location = 'bun_modules' //default node_modules
I don't think it would make a big difference with the default value of
node_modules
.The reason I suggested is that the filename
node_modules
is a bit strange if you develop with bun environment.
I guess it doesn't matter)
node_modules
is defacto standard
We also download from Node Package Manager
npm doesn't stand for "node package manager" read: https://github.com/npm/cli#is-npm-an-acronym-for-node-package-manager
npm does stand for "node package manager". Please stop falsely correcting people on this. read: https://x.com/rough__sea/status/1778377222597816536
Unrelatedly (or perhaps, back on topic), this proposal seems pretty short-sighted. I haven't seen a usecase for this irl.
What is the problem this feature would solve?
an alternative name for
node_modules
.What is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?
expose a configuration to set name of
node_modules
, likebun_modules
or.modules
.What alternatives have you considered?
No response