phadej

I probably don't say it in the talk very explicitly (or do I?): the target architecture is web = JavaScript.

Good comment!

I did make a too quick judgement there. It turns out you can't easily see how popularality of CoffeeScript has changed.

    It is surprising to see CoffeeScript in this list as a language compiler
    should be mainly a dev-dependency. You compile the CoffeeScript source to
    JavaScript for distribution, so you don’t need coffee-script to be a
    dependency. The packages that depend upon coffee-script include among others:
    grunt, jasmine-node, jscoverage, cucumber and hubot. They all allow you to use
    CoffeeScript sources.

While there isn't anything wrong in supporting CoffeeScript out-of-the-box, I like karma's approach more. It has "karma-coffee-preprocessor", it should be self-explanatory.

I corrected the jasmine stats. The right package is `jasmine-node`, not `jasmine`. Sorry for my mistake.

Though there are now much more users, there are still less than of nodeunit or mocha.

I like the minimalistic nature of npm packages. It also encourages people to publish own packages. If you create an useful test assertion library, you don't need to turn it into full blown framework with all possible bells and whistles!

It was enough to fetch only the package metadata for the analysis in the post.

One could fetch the actual packages too (e.g. the smaller ~20k package set). But there should be more motivators than just counting the amount lines of code :)