Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • The more I read these ass Claude Opus writings the more I believe AGI is further away from us.
    by magnio
  • I thought 'how bad can it be?', yet only three paragraphs in "a specifier now names a repository rather than choosing a transport"

    If you're going to serve us slop then at least serve us good slop, give it a pass through GPT 5.6 to clean up the English.

    by zarzavat
  • Am I the only one that hates the decision to no longer support corepack?
    by mmmeff
  • First I'm hearing of it, and it does dampen my enthusiasm for v12 a bit.
    by joshuat
  • I migrated a Node 24 repo to pnpm 12 and it works absolutely fine with corepack out of the box.
    by anon7000
  • It is node.js core that decided to drop corepack, now both yarn and pnpm are build own version of that.
    by Chyzwar
  • Same here. Corepack was fine and there is already too much churn
    by catlifeonmars
  • Is "pnpm installs the other package managers" what you're talking about, or something else? That doesn't quite read like removing corepack support to me, though I might be missing something obvious.
    by winterqt
  • pnpm 12 supports corepack (or better phrased - corepack supports pnpm 12).

    they just don't recommend it.

    nodejs stopped bundling corepack since node 25, maybe you're referring to that?

    by mirekrusin
  • Hooray!
    by ledoncool
  • Good to see the maintainers don't care enough to take the time to write a release blogpost themselves. sigh
    by winterqt
  • Hey Claude, write in the worst possible claudism way you possibly can, and make it sound like every other text on the internet that is published nowadays.

    "This post covers what pnpm 12 adds that pnpm 11 never shipped."

    by techpression
  • I was also bothered by this. I don't care if you use LLMs to write most or all of your code, but at least have the courtesy of actually writing your blog posts & readmes, to demonstrate that you at least understand what the LLM generated for you.
    by paavohtl
  • just why pnpm? you are stable, you are loved by the community. Now you feel the need to throw it away to rewrite for what? Can anybody give me a good explaination
    by knlam
  • Check the benchmarks, hopefully even more JS slop is converted to Rust for the sake of humanity.
    by cpursley
  • They should focus on the tool, do not try to rewrite it… everyone tries to rewrite things to rust now, pnpm was already great alternative to npm - just keep improving it instead of rewriting:/
    by coder-pm
  • Time to hop off I guess. They don't even bother to write changlog on their own.
    by xiaoyu2006
  • Same here, what if the internals get the same absence of care? No thank you.
    by jdkoeck
  • Had to check the calendar to be sure it wasn’t somehow April 1st. No, it’s August. Huh.

    I don’t see how it’s possible that the pnpm maintainers are unaware of the bun AI-rewrite-to-rust saga… so I’m baffled, befuddled, and overall at a loss to make sense of this decision.

    by fwlr
  • Bun rewrite seems like a big success story.
    by raincole
  • > unaware of the bun AI-rewrite-to-rust saga

    I seem to be mostly unaware, at least, it's not self-explanatory to me why a Rust rewrite would be that baffling. What's the verdict on the Bun rewrite, and how does that relate to pnpm's decision? Also, wasn't Bun switching from Zig to Rust instead of from TypeScript to Rust like pnpm? I get the impression that many web infrastructure projects have been switching to more native languages.

    by codeflo
  • https://bun.com/blog/bun-v1.4 has some pretty nice numbers indeed.
    by GrayShade
  • To be fair to the pnpm maintainers, they have been working on this well before the bun AI rewrite. The first commit in their rust experiment is in 2021.

    https://github.com/pnpm/pn/commits/main/?after=e24c0b293f1f4...

    by johnnypangs
  • I got to the conclusion that boring is good enough, for me NPM is the best tool, is not that fast, but the installation speed is not that bad, considering how many times I need to run from scratch, the difference does not matter, it is stable and it's the default Node package manager, so I don't need to bother to install in CI any other tool, etc. My experience for long living projects is to stick with the defaults, because in a few years third party tools will change, it happen to my team with Yarn classic, now that we are with vanilla Node and NPM no worries, same with 3rd party dependencies, just use as less as possible.
    by norman784
  • yeah the problem is npm is now Microsoft, just like Github. I trust Node. I don't trust NPM.
    by brazukadev
  • I have the same experience - npm was bad, now it is fast enough.
    by taspeotis
  • Npm likes to run package lifecycle scripts of your dependencies by default. You have to explicitly opt out of this.

    It’s probably the worst package manager out of npm, pnpm, yarn, and bun.

    by catlifeonmars
  • Describing NPM as boring is a stretch. Given its security model, i think spicy is a far more apt label.

    I have switched to pnpm already.

    by CraigJPerry
  • Unless you care about security, stability, DX, speed and correctness then npm is fine choice.
    by Chyzwar
  • I'm curious, as it's not mentioned, are there any performance improvements as part of this rewrite?
    by deanc