When we talk about JavaScript vanilla it's frontend programming language; It needs a webserver like IIS, Apache or nginx etc to deliver the content to a client when requested. After that, JavaScript runs on client browser, but every video or article I found said we need to install node.js to make this work. What I know about node.js is its a runtime environment to make JavaScript work outside the browser; like for a backend api or regular desktop application.
Here is my question:
Why do we need to use Node.js if our target is to deploy a frontend webapp that's gonna run on the client browser?
You don't have to install and use Node to make frontend applications, but it can help a lot, especially in large projects. The main reason it's used is so that script-writers can easily install, use, and update external packages via NPM. For a few examples:
Webpack, to consolidate multiple script files into a single one for production (and to minify, if desired)
Babel, to automatically transpile scripts written in modern syntax down to ES6 or ES5
A linter like ESLint to avoid accidental bugs and enforce a consistent code style
A CSS preprocessor for Sass that can turn (concise) Sass into standard (more verbose) CSS consumable by browsers
And so on. Organizing an environment for these sorts of things would be very difficult without NPM (which depends on Node).
None if it is necessary, but many find that it can make the development process much easier.
In the process of creating files for the client to consume, if you want to do anything more elaborate than write plain raw .js, .html, .css files, you'll need something extra - which is most often done via NPM.
It's only for extra support during development, and ease of installing libraries. almost like an extra IDE / helpful editor
for example you might want to see changes you make on your HTML and frontend javascript code, without having to refresh the preview browser. node will provide a package that does that...
it also helps install and use libraries easier. for example, if you want to add a library like bootstrap to your frontend, rather than searching around and downloading the files... but if you use node project, you can simply use npm install bootstrap that will automatically download the lastest version from the right source.
that's all
I made a Javascript file. Let's say the contents of it are this:
let myCoolAlert = (str) => {
alert(str)
}
// in a different js file (SO doesn't allow you to cross-file as far as I know
myCoolAlert('Hello World!')
I already hosted the JS file on a CDN. Now, I want it to be automatically hosted locally by whoever installed it if you install it via NPM. Is there a way to do this?
Also, I noticed that to do the same using Socket.io, you have to pass Socket.io to the HTTP/HTTPS server you created. Will I have to do this also? (I would prefer not).
Thanks!
Edit:
I am trying to make a better alert system (like sweetalert). I coded it in Javascript and works when using it through the CDN. However, I also want users to be able to install this via NPM (kind of like SweetAlert? I am not sure about that last statement however because I do not use it). When they install it with NPM, it's obviously going to be useless because it is for the browser. However, I want them to either:
Automatically have the source code needed available at a URL like localhost:3000(or server name)/betterAlert.js and be able to use that URL as a script in the HTML files
OR, have the user pass the HTTP or HTTPS server they created to the module (like socket.io does) and have it automatically host it from there.
Please note:
The code I am trying to bundle is native to the web. Will it still work with a bundler like webpack?
Is this possible? Thanks again.
To bundle client-side code and publish it through NPM you'll need to do a couple things: learn how to package and publish modules, and write some code that can be consumed. This means using module.exports or export to expose your library, depending on whether you want to use CJS or ESM. The consumer of your library can usually be assumed to be using Webpack, Fuse, Rollup, or some other bundler which knows how to deal with modules.
You can also use a tool like Rollup yourself to build and bundle up your library for different targets and apply various transformations to it (example from my own library boilerplate). Using a bundler like this makes more and more sense as your library inevitably grows larger.
Using modules like this rather than distributing through a CDN or in some other way that puts your library code on the global/window object is generally better for consumption in complex apps, large apps, and/or apps already being built with tools like Webpack (so, anything written in React, Angular, Vue, etc.). But having a CDN distribution is still a good idea for something like your library, since it may well be used by people building sites with jQuery and vanilla JS.
Javascript dinosaur here. Back in the good old days, customizing a JS library was pretty easy. I'd download the non-minified version, put that sucker on the /js folder, do the changes necessary to the code and embed it on the html. Like this:
<script src="Sortable.js"></script>
Enter the marvelous world of modern javascript, a great advance where no project folders have less than 14mb. In this world, I don't download the file and put it on the /js folder, I install the package with 12 warnings and import it, and then a little program compiles it for me every time I need to test it. Takes 10x longer, but hey, my code is now compatible with the 0.0003% of users who use Internet Explorer 4. Wonderful. Anyway, this is the modern code:
import Sortable from 'sortablejs/modular/sortable.core.esm.js';
Sarcasm aside, I have a serious question: When customizing a library in a modern setup, of course, I won't change the final compiled version as it would be overwritten in a new build. I also wouldn't change the files sitting in node_modules folder, because these will be overwritten with every update. So what's the best way to do this?
Something tells me I have to fork the library, put the fork on npm and import the fork. I don't want to believe it. Is this really what I have to do to customize literally 2 lines of code?
If I had such a task, I would rather download the source code, do the changes, build it, and "install" it as a dependency using Local Path:
{
"name": "project",
"dependencies": {
"sortablejs" : "file:../path/to/sortablejs/bin"
}
}
But it's difficult to update the package with those changes. That's why you may consider using something like patch-package or using Yarn's yarn patch <package>, which lets you keep your changes separately from your package (in theory, I've never used it before).
I really like using cdnjs to load up javascript on the client-side, it makes my project smaller and cleaner, and loads everything faster as well. I currently use require.js for module loading, which can load from cdnjs and shim traditional scripts to work with it easily. I've been looking more into browserify recently as an alternative, and while I did find browserify-shim, which can shim non-cjs modules much like require does, I'm curious if there is a way to load a script from a remote source with browserify, or if you have to install everything locally no matter what.
If the answer is that you would have to install everything locally through npm, this makes things a little weird. On one hand, you can add node_modules to the .gitignore file and not have to worry about keeping all the deps on version control if you are using a package.json, but on the other hand, you'd need to get the modules back in there on deploy, which means an additional post-deploy step that would run npm install and that node would need to be installed wherever you are deploying to, which also seems a little awkward to me for a static site especially.
Really, any ideas or discussion on this would be great : )
The way I think about it is this, you have three options: concat the JS files together locally (browserify) before deployment, load them in real-time (require.js), or a mix of both. To be fair, you can use require.js to concat your files with r.js too. For me at least, I like how browserify is designed to use the same syntax and mentality as npm modules. I think in the end the weirdness your experiencing doesn't really matter. If all the code is packaged together, you deploy, and there aren't any dependencies, seems like a win to me. Also, I think this is more in line with Java and similar compiled languages are doing, which is putting all the deps together in a deployable package. I know I mention Java but don't let that scare you because really we are all benefitting from the ideas of those around us even the languages we think we don't like. If I had to bet my money, I would bet on browserify since it's offering (what I consider) to be a more mature means of handling modules (organized by file based rather than syntax). The npm also gives us a great way to share our code so two thumbs up for them.
What is the fundamental difference between bower and npm? Just want something plain and simple. I've seen some of my colleagues use bower and npm interchangeably in their projects.
All package managers have many downsides. You just have to pick which you can live with.
History
npm started out managing node.js modules (that's why packages go into node_modules by default), but it works for the front-end too when combined with Browserify or webpack.
Bower is created solely for the front-end and is optimized with that in mind.
Size of repo
npm is much, much larger than bower, including general purpose JavaScript (like country-data for country information or sorts for sorting functions that is usable on the front end or the back end).
Bower has a much smaller amount of packages.
Handling of styles etc
Bower includes styles etc.
npm is focused on JavaScript. Styles are either downloaded separately or required by something like npm-sass or sass-npm.
Dependency handling
The biggest difference is that npm does nested dependencies (but is flat by default) while Bower requires a flat dependency tree (puts the burden of dependency resolution on the user).
A nested dependency tree means that your dependencies can have their own dependencies which can have their own, and so on. This allows for two modules to require different versions of the same dependency and still work. Note since npm v3, the dependency tree will be flat by default (saving space) and only nest where needed, e.g., if two dependencies need their own version of Underscore.
Some projects use both: they use Bower for front-end packages and npm for developer tools like Yeoman, Grunt, Gulp, JSHint, CoffeeScript, etc.
Resources
Nested Dependencies - Insight into why node_modules works the way it does
This answer is an addition to the answer of Sindre Sorhus. The major difference between npm and Bower is the way they treat recursive dependencies. Note that they can be used together in a single project.
On the npm FAQ: (archive.org link from 6 Sep 2015)
It is much harder to avoid dependency conflicts without nesting
dependencies. This is fundamental to the way that npm works, and has
proven to be an extremely successful approach.
On Bower homepage:
Bower is optimized for the front-end. Bower uses a flat dependency
tree, requiring only one version for each package, reducing page load
to a minimum.
In short, npm aims for stability. Bower aims for minimal resource load. If you draw out the dependency structure, you will see this:
npm:
project root
[node_modules] // default directory for dependencies
-> dependency A
-> dependency B
[node_modules]
-> dependency A
-> dependency C
[node_modules]
-> dependency B
[node_modules]
-> dependency A
-> dependency D
As you can see it installs some dependencies recursively. Dependency A has three installed instances!
Bower:
project root
[bower_components] // default directory for dependencies
-> dependency A
-> dependency B // needs A
-> dependency C // needs B and D
-> dependency D
Here you see that all unique dependencies are on the same level.
So, why bother using npm?
Maybe dependency B requires a different version of dependency A than dependency C. npm installs both versions of this dependency so it will work anyway, but Bower will give you a conflict because it does not like duplication (because loading the same resource on a webpage is very inefficient and costly, also it can give some serious errors). You will have to manually pick which version you want to install. This can have the effect that one of the dependencies will break, but that is something that you will need to fix anyway.
So, the common usage is Bower for the packages that you want to publish on your webpages (e.g. runtime, where you avoid duplication), and use npm for other stuff, like testing, building, optimizing, checking, etc. (e.g. development time, where duplication is of less concern).
Update for npm 3:
npm 3 still does things differently compared to Bower. It will install the dependencies globally, but only for the first version it encounters. The other versions are installed in the tree (the parent module, then node_modules).
[node_modules]
dep A v1.0
dep B v1.0
dep A v1.0 (uses root version)
dep C v1.0
dep A v2.0 (this version is different from the root version, so it will be an nested installation)
For more information, I suggest reading the docs of npm 3
TL;DR: The biggest difference in everyday use isn't nested dependencies... it's the difference between modules and globals.
I think the previous posters have covered well some of the basic distinctions. (npm's use of nested dependencies is indeed very helpful in managing large, complex applications, though I don't think it's the most important distinction.)
I'm surprised, however, that nobody has explicitly explained one of the most fundamental distinctions between Bower and npm. If you read the answers above, you'll see the word 'modules' used often in the context of npm. But it's mentioned casually, as if it might even just be a syntax difference.
But this distinction of modules vs. globals (or modules vs. 'scripts') is possibly the most important difference between Bower and npm. The npm approach of putting everything in modules requires you to change the way you write Javascript for the browser, almost certainly for the better.
The Bower Approach: Global Resources, Like <script> Tags
At root, Bower is about loading plain-old script files. Whatever those script files contain, Bower will load them. Which basically means that Bower is just like including all your scripts in plain-old <script>'s in the <head> of your HTML.
So, same basic approach you're used to, but you get some nice automation conveniences:
You used to need to include JS dependencies in your project repo (while developing), or get them via CDN. Now, you can skip that extra download weight in the repo, and somebody can do a quick bower install and instantly have what they need, locally.
If a Bower dependency then specifies its own dependencies in its bower.json, those'll be downloaded for you as well.
But beyond that, Bower doesn't change how we write javascript. Nothing about what goes inside the files loaded by Bower needs to change at all. In particular, this means that the resources provided in scripts loaded by Bower will (usually, but not always) still be defined as global variables, available from anywhere in the browser execution context.
The npm Approach: Common JS Modules, Explicit Dependency Injection
All code in Node land (and thus all code loaded via npm) is structured as modules (specifically, as an implementation of the CommonJS module format, or now, as an ES6 module). So, if you use NPM to handle browser-side dependencies (via Browserify or something else that does the same job), you'll structure your code the same way Node does.
Smarter people than I have tackled the question of 'Why modules?', but here's a capsule summary:
Anything inside a module is effectively namespaced, meaning it's not a global variable any more, and you can't accidentally reference it without intending to.
Anything inside a module must be intentionally injected into a particular context (usually another module) in order to make use of it
This means you can have multiple versions of the same external dependency (lodash, let's say) in various parts of your application, and they won't collide/conflict. (This happens surprisingly often, because your own code wants to use one version of a dependency, but one of your external dependencies specifies another that conflicts. Or you've got two external dependencies that each want a different version.)
Because all dependencies are manually injected into a particular module, it's very easy to reason about them. You know for a fact: "The only code I need to consider when working on this is what I have intentionally chosen to inject here".
Because even the content of injected modules is encapsulated behind the variable you assign it to, and all code executes inside a limited scope, surprises and collisions become very improbable. It's much, much less likely that something from one of your dependencies will accidentally redefine a global variable without you realizing it, or that you will do so. (It can happen, but you usually have to go out of your way to do it, with something like window.variable. The one accident that still tends to occur is assigning this.variable, not realizing that this is actually window in the current context.)
When you want to test an individual module, you're able to very easily know: exactly what else (dependencies) is affecting the code that runs inside the module? And, because you're explicitly injecting everything, you can easily mock those dependencies.
To me, the use of modules for front-end code boils down to: working in a much narrower context that's easier to reason about and test, and having greater certainty about what's going on.
It only takes about 30 seconds to learn how to use the CommonJS/Node module syntax. Inside a given JS file, which is going to be a module, you first declare any outside dependencies you want to use, like this:
var React = require('react');
Inside the file/module, you do whatever you normally would, and create some object or function that you'll want to expose to outside users, calling it perhaps myModule.
At the end of a file, you export whatever you want to share with the world, like this:
module.exports = myModule;
Then, to use a CommonJS-based workflow in the browser, you'll use tools like Browserify to grab all those individual module files, encapsulate their contents at runtime, and inject them into each other as needed.
AND, since ES6 modules (which you'll likely transpile to ES5 with Babel or similar) are gaining wide acceptance, and work both in the browser or in Node 4.0, we should mention a good overview of those as well.
More about patterns for working with modules in this deck.
EDIT (Feb 2017): Facebook's Yarn is a very important potential replacement/supplement for npm these days: fast, deterministic, offline package-management that builds on what npm gives you. It's worth a look for any JS project, particularly since it's so easy to swap it in/out.
EDIT (May 2019)
"Bower has finally been deprecated. End of story." (h/t: #DanDascalescu, below, for pithy summary.)
And, while Yarn is still active, a lot of the momentum for it shifted back to npm once it adopted some of Yarn's key features.
2017-Oct update
Bower has finally been deprecated. End of story.
Older answer
From Mattias Petter Johansson, JavaScript developer at Spotify:
In almost all cases, it's more appropriate to use Browserify and npm over Bower. It is simply a better packaging solution for front-end apps than Bower is. At Spotify, we use npm to package entire web modules (html, css, js) and it works very well.
Bower brands itself as the package manager for the web. It would be awesome if this was true - a package manager that made my life better as a front-end developer would be awesome. The problem is that Bower offers no specialized tooling for the purpose. It offers NO tooling that I know of that npm doesn't, and especially none that is specifically useful for front-end developers. There is simply no benefit for a front-end developer to use Bower over npm.
We should stop using bower and consolidate around npm. Thankfully, that is what is happening:
With browserify or webpack, it becomes super-easy to concatenate all your modules into big minified files, which is awesome for performance, especially for mobile devices. Not so with Bower, which will require significantly more labor to get the same effect.
npm also offers you the ability to use multiple versions of modules simultaneously. If you have not done much application development, this might initially strike you as a bad thing, but once you've gone through a few bouts of Dependency hell you will realize that having the ability to have multiple versions of one module is a pretty darn great feature. Note that npm includes a very handy dedupe tool that automatically makes sure that you only use two versions of a module if you actually have to - if two modules both can use the same version of one module, they will. But if they can't, you have a very handy out.
(Note that Webpack and rollup are widely regarded to be better than Browserify as of Aug 2016.)
Bower maintains a single version of modules, it only tries to help you select the correct/best one for you.
Javascript dependency management : npm vs bower vs volo?
NPM is better for node modules because there is a module system and you're working locally.
Bower is good for the browser because currently there is only the global scope, and you want to be very selective about the version you work with.
My team moved away from Bower and migrated to npm because:
Programmatic usage was painful
Bower's interface kept changing
Some features, like the url shorthand, are entirely broken
Using both Bower and npm in the same project is painful
Keeping bower.json version field in sync with git tags is painful
Source control != package management
CommonJS support is not straightforward
For more details, see "Why my team uses npm instead of bower".
Found this useful explanation from http://ng-learn.org/2013/11/Bower-vs-npm/
On one hand npm was created to install modules used in a node.js environment, or development tools built using node.js such Karma, lint, minifiers and so on. npm can install modules locally in a project ( by default in node_modules ) or globally to be used by multiple projects. In large projects the way to specify dependencies is by creating a file called package.json which contains a list of dependencies. That list is recognized by npm when you run npm install, which then downloads and installs them for you.
On the other hand bower was created to manage your frontend dependencies. Libraries like jQuery, AngularJS, underscore, etc. Similar to npm it has a file in which you can specify a list of dependencies called bower.json. In this case your frontend dependencies are installed by running bower install which by default installs them in a folder called bower_components.
As you can see, although they perform a similar task they are targeted to a very different set of libraries.
For many people working with node.js, a major benefit of bower is for managing dependencies that are not javascript at all. If they are working with languages that compile to javascript, npm can be used to manage some of their dependencies. however, not all their dependencies are going to be node.js modules. Some of those that compile to javascript may have weird source language specific mangling that makes passing them around compiled to javascript an inelegant option when users are expecting source code.
Not everything in an npm package needs to be user-facing javascript, but for npm library packages, at least some of it should be.