The number one reason to write CLI apps in node is npm. npm gets package management right, preferring local dependencies to global ones - this means no worrying about what version of a library a user has in their global environment.
You also get to bring node's parallel io-centric patterns to your scripting. Need to download a bunch of files from a remote host, process them, and write them to disk? Go for it.
But take it with a grain of salt: it's very much a use-what-you-know kind of thing.
Need to download a bunch of files from a remote host, process them, and write them to disk?
cat urls.txt | while read -r url; do
wget "$url" -O - -o "$base.log" | process > "$base" &
For ad-hoc scripting, I tend to prefer bash, with anything remotely corresponding to heavy lifting assigned to the language with the best library / performance / whatever critical factor for it. Fork-join parallelism in bash is very easy.
I thought a lot of people discourage the use of static linking or any form of local dependency bundling, because when there's a security update every app needs to be updated individually. But it seems that with the emergence of Bundler and NPM, people are trending more and more towards local bundling. What happened?
One possible contrarian view: global dependencies actually cause a lot of those security updates to be necessary. Exploits that target a given version of a given library may be easier to propagate if you know that almost every application run by every user depends on that library version.
The verbosity of the XML pom is the problem. Alternative syntax using the same coordinate system are great and much easier on the eyes. The real value in maven (I think) is having that clean dependency chain and it works great. XML is what sucks (especially doing it by hand).
really. if a page is about 60-80 lines, that's what, 1000 lines? and most IDE's help manage them. The makefile's to some open source projects get longer than that, and they only get worse when they're proprietary.
I actually think this promotion was extremely on-brand for what this startup is (or was) doing. I can't speak to the regulatory compliance angle, but the fact is that this was clever, effective, and well-placed customer contact. It's not the risk profile that I would personally look for, but it is a little sad to see so many on HN rushing to condemn it.
We can't have nice things when people who claim to be "disruptive" are actually busy pursuing safe, risk-averse targets.
I don't really care about ATF regulations, but there is no moral high ground here. This was just plagiarism. These people pretended to have done something that they did not do. They took credit for someone else's work.
So "we can't have nice things" here means "we can't plagiarize vodka"? Well you can't plagiarize Steven King either. Deal with it.