Bolting reusable libraries together is great for some things, not so much for others. How much of that large package repository uses different (or worse, conflicting) solutions for abstracting async programming? Some batteries really are better off being included.
And I'd observe that all three of the things I mentioned ("async", threading, static typing) are firmly in the "not" camp.
If the Node community admits these are desirable characteristics of a programming development environment, then they've lost, because they can not compete on any of those three fronts. The entire value proposition of Node was basically that those three things weren't important. If they are, Node's arrogant swagger turns into a frantic attempt to cobble together enough functionality to pretend to have the features that exist better elsewhere.
Don't think you can sell me on fundamental weaknesses in your language of choice being features, twerquie. I've got too much experience in too many environments to fall for that.
Why, it's almost as if Node is built on fundamentally 1990s scripting technology based on fundamentally 1970s event-based ideas or something, instead of being the radical revolutionary departure we all know it really is.
It is true though that many js deficiencies have turned out to be factors contributing to node's popularity. A lack of namespaces, standard library and import/require come to mind.
I'm not interested in arguing about technical superiority, I'm sure node is no where close to ideal. But, like javascript itself, it's popular, interesting, useful, and here to stay. From my perspective, for better or worse, javascript is the most important programming language of the decade.
