The people in the Github thread advocating for this feature seem to be pushing really hard on the point that this isn't any more insecure than NPM already is. But that's myopic. That's like saying that the lock is broken on the second floor window of your house, so you may as well unlock all the other windows. If a junior developer working for me proposed something like this I would pull them away from the computer and have a long coffee chat with them about basic architecture principles.
Yes, we know there are problems with NPM. But why broaden the possible attack surface area by introducing another kind-of-sort-of-equivalent means of remote module loading? Now you're just going to have to spend time hardening two systems instead of one.
At the end of the day this just feels like a misguided attempt to try and recapture some sense of dynamism from Deno. But if I wanted dynamism, I'd use Deno, with all of its pubescent awkwardness. I'm using Node.js stable for a reason. I spend a lot of cycles trying to defend Node from its many (often reasonable) detractors, and things like this make me feel like I'm wasting my breath...
Yes, we know there are problems with NPM. But why broaden the possible attack surface area by introducing another kind-of-sort-of-equivalent means of remote module loading? Now you're just going to have to spend time hardening two systems instead of one.
At the end of the day this just feels like a misguided attempt to try and recapture some sense of dynamism from Deno. But if I wanted dynamism, I'd use Deno, with all of its pubescent awkwardness. I'm using Node.js stable for a reason. I spend a lot of cycles trying to defend Node from its many (often reasonable) detractors, and things like this make me feel like I'm wasting my breath...