Deno: JavaScript Runtime for V8 Written in Rust
deno.land
deno.land
> The goal of Node was event driven HTTP servers.
>
> 5:04
> 1 Regret: Not sticking with Promises.
> * I added promises to Node in June 2009 but foolishly removed them in February 2010.
> * Promises are the necessary abstraction for async/await.
> * It's possible unified usage of promises in Node would have sped the delivery of the eventual standartization and async/await.
> * Today Node's many async APIs are aging baldly due to this.
>
> 6:02
> 2 Regret: Security
> * V8 by itself is a very good security sandbox
> * Had I put more thought into how that could be maintained for certain applications, Node colud have had some nice security guarantees not available in any other language.
> * Example: Your linter shouldn't get complete access to your computer and network.
>
> 7:01
> 3 Regret: The Build System (GYP)
> * Build systems are very difficult and very important.
> * V8 (via Chrome) started using GYP and I switched Node over in tow.
> * Later Chrome dropped GYP for GN. Leaving Node the sole GYP user.
> * GYP is not an ugly internal interface either - it is exposed to anyone who's trying to bind to V8.
> * It's an awful experience for users. It's this non-JSON, Python adaptation of JSON.
> * The continued usage of GYP is the probably largest failure of Node core.
> * Instead of guiding users to write C++ bindings to V8, I should have provided a core foreign function interface (FFI)
> * Many people, early on, suggested moving to an FFI (namely Cantrill) and regrettably I ignored them.
> * (And I am extremely displeased that libuv adopted autotools.)
>
> 9:52
> 4 Regret: package.json
> * Isaac, in NPM, invented package.json (for the most part)
> * But I sanctioned it by allowing Nod's require() to inspect package.json files for "main"
> * Ultimately I included NPM in the Node distribution, which much made it the defacto standard.
> * It's unfortunate that there is centralized (privately controlled even) repository for modules.
> * Allowing package.json gave rise to the concept of a "module" as a directory of files.
> * This is no a strictly necessary abstraction - and one that doesn't exist on the web.
> * package.json now includes all sorts of unnecessary information. License? Repository? Description? It's boilerplate noise.
> * If only relative files and URLs were used when importing, the path defines the version. There is no need to list dependencies.
>
> 12:35
> 5 Regret: node_modules
> * It massively complicates the module resolution algorithm.
> * vendored-by-default has good intentions, but in practice just using $NODE_PATH wouldn't have precluded that.
> * Deviates greatly from browser semantics
> * It's my fault and I'm very sorry.
> * Unfortunately it's impossible to undo now.
>
> 14:00
> 6 Regret: require("module") without the extension ".js"
> * Needlessly less explicit.
> * Not how browser javascript works. You cannot omit the ".js" in a script tag src attribute.
> * The module loader has to query the file system at multiple locations trying to guess what the user intended.
>
> 14:40
> 7 Regret: index.js
> * I thought it was cute, because there was index.html
> * It needlessly complicated the module loading system.
> * It became especially unnecessary after require supported package.json
>
> 15:28 Talks about Deno.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3BM9TB-8yA&lc=UgwteTb0N1PFq...
A bit off-topic but Dahl referenced Cantrill here, who I figured to mean one of the authors of DTrace, Bryan Cantrill, who I then found from his Twitter (https://twitter.com/bcantrill) just last month started a new "computer company" which sounds super interesting, especially with his past experience and the passion he seems to have for attempting to solve a tough, bold problem:
Edit: which apparently was posted on HN with 500+ upvotes https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21682360, regardless it's a good read worth re-mentioning here
Edit 2: Also thank you for the excellent write up, I wish every tech talk had a text TLDR
that seemed rather apparent even at the time - what's been more interesting is watching others defend some of these decisions as if there was a lot of thought put in to them, and that they're some example of great architecture.
not specifically ragging on nodejs - I see this a lot in various projects - small/minor decisions compound over time, and even if they were not originally planned/intended to have significance, they have it at some point, and often people who weren't involved in the original decisions think there's a lot more 'there' there behind the original decisions, when, usually, there isn't.
I looked on the status page and it seems like things are moving along to the ~1.0 release, but as an outsider I can't gauge if that's three months or a year.
I'm mostly just really excited for this at there's a great deal of it (Deno) that makes a shitload more sense to me than Node (module loading is one, $HOME/.deno/bin is another); and being so heavily integrated with Rust appeals to me in a big way (I actually understand Rust, but C++ always leaves me just instantly mind-fucked).
However internally there are quite a few things need to refactor. Since Deno aims for better Web spec compliance, we need an overhaul of the Worker implementation we have right now. So likely existing API interfaces under the Deno namespace is stabilizing soon, but many of the Web-compat APIs still need frequent updates
from the benchmarks, deno looks similar to node in net/http perf. is there any specific reason you guys cannot get significantly more perf out of deno? (Alex has always said and shown that v8 is not the bottleneck).
does v1 mean that some of the existing architectural choices are frozen and any significant perf improvments become impossible?
Looking forward to giving it a test drive!
You probably don't need me to tell you this stuff though.. it's just annoying to see people pester every project about 1.0. I get it's probably just their excitement..
Is this what I think it is? Does it mean in the future I can write 'await fn()' and it'll run in a different thread? Or am I a fool and hoping too much?
[1] https://github.com/denoland/deno/issues/3003#issuecomment-53...
[1] https://blog.logrocket.com/a-complete-guide-to-threads-in-no...
The cool stuff I think is in where Deno is different. Able to be used as a library from other Rust or C compatible languages. Able to compile your javascript and Deno itself together into a single binary, etc
2. Management sanity. Deno is written in TypeScript, so it doesn't need something like @types/node to interface with TypeScript the way Node does. This is rarely problematic, but when it does come up its painful. For example in Node the http response type is http.incomingMessage. The port number of the originating server is in there at response.socket.server.port, but @types/node currently thinks response.socket is typed to net.socket which doesn't have a server property and so you get a compile error.
3. Distribution sanity. If you download the @angular/cli framework from NPM it is, at this time, 250 NPM dependencies and 26.6mb for just the CLI interface. The full framework is closer to 90mb and 1140 NPM dependencies. That is insanity. The Node binary plus installer for Windows is only 18.6mb. Deno wants to solve this by wrapping a project into a single archive for package distribution. Hopefully, that will result in smaller packages where dependencies are fewer and intentional instead of the nonsense of stuff like NPM or Maven.
4. ES Modules are a very nice way to manage and organize code. I am using them now with a large Node project I am writing without Node's silly conventions for ES modules. In Node ES modules are experimental and there are virtually no dependencies available that are exclusively using ES modules and feature a TypeScript types library in Node, so if you go down that path you must be dedicated.
Edit: It still supports Typescript (since TS is a superset of JS it can be a native runtime for both, right?).
---
From the OP:
Comparison to Node.js
- Deno does not use npm - It uses modules referenced as URLs or file paths
- Deno does not use package.json in its module resolution algorithm.
- All async actions in Deno return a promise. Thus Deno provides different APIs than Node.
- Deno requires explicit permissions for file, network, and environment access.
- Deno always dies on uncaught errors.
- Uses "ES Modules" and does not support require(). Third party modules are imported via URLs:
import * as log from "https://deno.land/std/log/mod.ts";
* No npm spaghetti, just requiring a URL is a win
* It'll build a lightweight static binary. Usually way smaller than the equivalent node Docker image
* The stdlib and every community lib were written at a time when async/await was the norm. So they're all very nice to use compared to wildly inconsistent node libs
Your comment inspired me to study Deno deeper and consider it for practical use. In addition to the pros you've listed, seamless integration of TypeScript sounds fantastic.
Would love to hear more about how Deno is used in your company!
IMO not really. We have many Java and JS projects where I work, I can't find a single Java project that has bigger dependencies than even our smallest JS project, or even an empty "create react app". One of our Java projects is 200k+ lines and still has smaller dependencies than create react app or a empty project created with angular cli.
In JS, it's normal to pull in 500+ libraries and this is only because the standard library is so lacking. Our Java projects, even massive ones, pull in less than 100.
In Java you also have Guava and Apache Commons. Those cover about 95% of data structure needs for a project not covered by the JVM. JS has nothing comparable.
People lament about how "big" the JVM is, but you trade complexity of the VM for complexity of your own app. In practice Java projects are smaller and use less space and memory because your dependencies aren't using 10 different libraries to pad whitespace.
This also makes it much easier to mentally transition between Java projects. If they were built in the last decade, they're probably using the standard library, Guava/Commons, hibernate, and some HTTP interface. I can move between Java projects at work no problem, but if it's Node or front-end 90% of the time I'm going to spend a few days learning a new framework to get anything done.
Small standard libraries are very harmful to the ecosystem. I hope to God they do it right with Deno, batteries included like Python and Java
My experience with Java projects is >1GB in RAM usage minimum (although it's been a couple years since I've written Java, so I don't know what improvements the JVM has made) whereas a Node app can run just fine on <100MB.
Again, conflating Node.js backend and JS front end apps is not a fair comparison to Java as a backend platform. Stick to apples and apples.
Node.js has quite a few standard libraries, although it's very common to use a framework like Express (and Express has been the top framework on Node.js since the earliest days of Node). The most difficult thing about going back to an older Node code base is that promises weren't officially supported, so there's often a 3rd party library for that or callbacks were used instead.
The main benefit of Node.js to me, remains the use of a single language across the front end and back end. You can often use the same libraries so you suffer very little context-switching penalty when bouncing back and forth.
Working between languages is easy as long as you use a cross-language object format like gRPC.IMO single language is overrated and context switching cost is basically zero. Is it hard to switch between two verbal or written languages you know? People do it mid sentence, I don't see how it's any different with programming languages.
Node packages tend to be smaller but there's far, far more of them in an average project. And unlike Java they're not stored as zip on disk and class files when built, so in both cases they're using a lot more space. Java bytecode was designed to be compact like WASM, it takes way less space than even minified source and it's zip compressed for deployment into a jar on top of that.
Node dependancies being more fragmented is generally a bad thing. I constantly have to replace libraries when our code scanners find vulnerable npm packages that are no longer maintained. Since Java is far less fragmented I hardly ever have to do this with our Java codebases.
Node's standard libraries are terrible compared to Java and Python but I can't make a case for that besides saying they clearly are.
I agree with you on front vs backend being a bad comparison, but even our regular express apps take up more space and memory.
Java using lots of ram is also a myth. It might have been true many years ago, but Java generally uses about 1/3 the memory storing the same structures because there's a lot less overhead per object and field. The only reason most Java apps use lots of ram is because people configure the garbage collector to use as much RAM as possible so it collects less often. Node doesn't use as much ram because nobody really changes the GC defaults.
It's not about "sharing code" between front end and back end. Although you can share code and I have in several projects, what I mentioned above was sharing libraries. That's very common, for example, Moment.js, Lodash, and i18n utils. I also use Chrome debugger tools on both front end and back end. I have even shared architectural patterns for state management.
I agree Java dependencies are less error prone because they're bundled up as Java byte code and I get the appeal there.
I agree Python has a fantastic standard library and Node is spartan by comparison. That was always a trade-off that Node consciously made from the beginning though.
Didn't know that about the GC defaults.
Context switching is a real thing, and sometimes creates penalties. But sometimes it increases productivity. For me it is very helpful to switch into SQL mode when grabbing data from a store, then switching to Go/Python/JS/Rust/C++/Ruby/etc thinking for the business rules around that data.
Frontend JS and backend JS are not really the same language or environment. They are different in important ways. But they are so very similar that it can be easy to be in "frontend" thinking mode when working on the backend, or vice versa. And I have many many times seen that cause problems.
That's not to say that it is bad to use the same language in both places. I'm just pointing out that there are pluses to context switching as well as negatives.
Well, to be fair, humans have dedicated hardware for natural language encoding/decoding ;)
There are some other issues with file stats as well; requiring multiple syscalls to retrieve information that can be had in just one.
It's a mystery to me why they made such a high level decision in such low level code without an escape hatch.. Been a lot of talk but probably won't be fixed any time soon due to backwards compatibility.
Just implement your own directory walk based on `readdir` or whatever fs operations you need directly.
Or use a library that has already done this: https://github.com/karrick/godirwalk#configurable-sorting-of...
The high level interface made one choice. The escape hatch is to use a lower level interface.
Of course one could always just make direct syscalls or use a library that does, but this was a comment about stdlib. These would likely be implemented differently in hindsight per discussions on the Go project; and there have been discussions about improving them somehow in Go 2(readdir2?).
A package manager is different from package hosting. In the case of Deno you can still build and use third party package managers (and they might be able to utilize Deno's import-maps support to achieve some "magic")
Maybe (just "maybe" for now) we will be able to support plugin imports. In that case dylibs could be directly pulled down from network just like normal files (don't take my words as official though -- we have not decided on that yet)
There have been attempts to add some util functions for loading such plugins easier: https://github.com/denoland/deno/pull/3471
JITs create "shapes" or "hidden classes" anyways: https://v8.dev/blog/fast-properties . They also do many speculative optimizations.
(TypeScript is not sound.)
Google Chrome keeps changing which affects Electron. I already had one tutorial that went out of date because of these changes.
It would be nice to use a different base, especially something that is built upon Rust's security and correctness guarantees.
You might also be interested in webview, which allows programs to use the native system webview without needing each application to bring their own copy of a browser everywhere!
Feel free to ask any questions there!
You can think of it as a large rust wrapper around C++ Javascript runtime.
The whole privileged side (except for v8 itself) is in Rust.
Ü
on top of that :)
I never get the point of TS, as long as JS ES2023(or whatever) got some typing in place, I will stick with JS for good.
also loads code from the internet and runs it no questions asked.
>loads code from the internet and runs it no questions asked
I think this is a reference to the fact that Deno uses "Ecmascript modules" referenced as URLs the same way modern browsers do.
Like every "modern" package manager? I think that's a lost cause.
Goal 2
Provide Secure Defaults
Unless specifically allowed [by the user], scripts can't access files, the environment, or the network."Note that we did not have to provide the --allow-net flag for this program, and yet it accessed the network. The runtime has special access to download imports and cache them to disk."
Also if you are just worried about any remote imports anyways, there is a `--no-remote` (turn off http[s] resolution) and `--cached-only` (only resolve remote module if it is already downloaded and saved in cache) flag on `deno run`
Deno the privileged runtime can do these things, but the scripts/code you get it to run cannot do these things without permission.
Specifically I was talking about this section of the posters comment "runs it no questions asked". No, it will _not_ be run no questions asked.