javascript

• JavaScript Package Managers: NPM, Yarn, PNPM, and Bun Compared

  If you’ve been writing JavaScript for any length of time, you’ve probably had opinions about package managers. Everyone has used npm because it’s the default. Maybe you switched to Yarn back in 2016 and haven’t looked back. These days, there are better options.

  That may seem like a bold statement, but bear with me. This article is a mix of opinions and facts. The package manager landscape has changed quite a bit in the last decade, and it’s worth exploring. Let’s break it down.

  NPM: The Default Everyone Knows

  npm is the package manager that ships with Node. It works. Everyone knows it. Node modules are straightforward to reason about, and security has been improving over the years.

  But npm has historically struggled with performance. That’s partly a design problem, it was so widely adopted that making fundamental speed improvements meant risking breakage for the massive ecosystem already depending on it. When you’re supporting millions of packages, you need to be careful in managing backward compatibility breaks, making optimization a lot harder.

  This performance gap is exactly what opened the door for alternatives.

  Yarn: The Pioneer That Over-Optimized

  Yarn showed up in 2016, created by Facebook, and it genuinely pushed the ecosystem forward. It parallelized downloads, introduced offline caching, and most notably, introduced lock files to JavaScript. npm eventually adopted lock files too, so Yarn’s influence on the broader ecosystem is undeniable.

  Lock files did exist for other languages before 2016, such as Ruby and PHP, but Yarn was the first JavaScript package manager to include it.

  The problem came with Yarn 2. It’s a classic case of over-optimization.

  Yarn 2 introduced Plug’n’Play mode, which replaces your node_modules folder with zip files. We’re on Yarn 4 now, and while you can swap between modes, if you’re in the zip mode it becomes genuinely painful to inspect the actual JavaScript code you’re installing. You have to unzip things, dig through archives, and it just adds friction where there shouldn’t be any.

  If you enjoy making JavaScript development harder than it needs to be, Yarn’s PnP mode has you covered. It’s your Toxic coworkers favorite tool.

  PNPM: The Clear Upgrade

  If you look at the benchmarks, pnpm wins in almost every common scenario. Running install with a warm cache, lock file, and existing node modules? Faster than npm. A clean install with nothing cached? 7 seconds versus 30 seconds. That’s not a marginal improvement.

  Speed isn’t even the best part. pnpm uses hard links from a centralized store instead of copying packages into every project’s node_modules. Depending on the size of your projects, you can save up to 70% of your disk space compared to npm. If you’re working on multiple JavaScript projects (and who isn’t?), that adds up fast.

  pnpm also handles the node_modules structure in a way that’s strict by default, which means your code can’t accidentally import packages you haven’t explicitly declared as dependencies. It catches bugs that npm would let slide.

  So pnpm is the clear winner, right? Well, there’s one more contender we haven’t talked about yet.

  Bun: The Speed Demon

  Bun was released in 2023, and noticeably faster than pnpm.

  The reason comes down to architecture. pnpm is written in TypeScript and runs on Node, which means every time you run pnpm install, your computer has to start the V8 engine, load all the JavaScript, compile it, and then ask the operating system to do the actual work. That’s a lot of overhead.

  Bun is a compiled binary written in Zig. It talks directly to your kernel, no middleman, no V8 engine slowing down every tiny decision. On top of that, Bun is hyper-focused on optimizing system calls. Instead of doing file operations one at a time (open file A, write file A, close file A, repeat a thousand times), it aggressively batches them together. The result is speed improvements not just in disk operations but in everything it does.

  Earlier versions of Bun had an annoying quirk similar to Yarn, it used a binary lock file that was difficult to manually audit. That’s been fixed. Bun now uses a readable lock file, which removes the biggest objection people had.

  Which begs the question… ?

  So Why Isn’t Everyone Using Bun?

  The short answer: it’s complicated. Bun isn’t just a package manager, it also replaces Node as your runtime. If you’re using Bun as your runtime, using it as your package manager makes total sense. Everything fits together.

  But most teams are still on Node. And when you’re on Node, pnpm is the clearer choice for everyone involved. A new developer joining your team sees pnpm and immediately knows, “Oh, this is a JavaScript project, I know how this works.” Bun as a package manager on top of Node adds a layer of “wait, why are we using this?” that you have to explain.

  Maybe that changes in the future as Bun’s runtime adoption grows. I’m sure the Bun team is working hard to make that transition as smooth as possible. But the reality right now is that most JavaScript projects are running on Node.

  My Recommendation

  If you’re starting a new project or looking to switch:

  • Using Bun as your runtime? Use Bun for package management too. It’s the fastest option and everything integrates cleanly.
  • On Node (most of us)? Use pnpm. It’s faster than npm, saves disk space, and is strict in ways that catch real bugs. Your team will thank you.
  • Still on npm? You’re not doing anything wrong, but you’re leaving performance and disk space on the table for no real benefit.
  • On Yarn PnP? I have questions, but I respect your commitment.

  The JavaScript ecosystem moves fast, and if you haven’t revisited your package manager choice in a while, it might be worth running a quick benchmark on your own project. The numbers might surprise you.

  Feb 18, 2026 / Tools / Development / javascript

  Enjoyed this?

• JavaScript Still Doesn't Have Types (And That's Probably Fine)

  Here’s the thing about JavaScript and types: it doesn’t have them, and it probably won’t any time soon.

  Back in 2022, there was a proposal to add TypeScript-like type syntax directly to JavaScript. The idea was being able to write type annotations without needing a separate compilation step. But the proposal stalled because the JavaScript community couldn’t reach consensus on implementation details.

  The core concern? Performance. JavaScript is designed to be lightweight and fast, running everywhere from browsers to servers to IoT devices. Adding a type system directly into the language could slow things down, and that’s a tradeoff many aren’t willing to make.

  So the industry has essentially accepted that if you want types in JavaScript, you use TypeScript. And honestly? That’s fine.

  TypeScript: JavaScript’s Type System

  TypeScript has become the de facto standard for typed JavaScript development. Here’s what it looks like:

  // TypeScript Example
  let name: string = "John";
  let age: number = 30;
  let isStudent: boolean = false;
  
  // Function with type annotations
  function greet(name: string): string {
    return `Hello, ${name}!`;
  }
  
  // Array with type annotation
  let numbers: number[] = [1, 2, 3];
  
  // Object with type annotation
  let person: { name: string; age: number } = { name: "Alice", age: 25 };
  

  TypeScript compiles down to plain JavaScript, so you get the benefits of static type checking during development without any runtime overhead. The types literally disappear when your code runs.

  The Python Parallel

  You might be interested to know that the closest parallel to this JavaScript/TypeScript situation is actually Python.

  Modern Python has types, but they’re not enforced by the language itself. Instead, you use third-party tools like mypy for static analysis and pydantic for runtime validation. There’s actually a whole ecosystem of libraries supporting types in Python in various ways, which can get a bit confusing.

  Here’s how Python’s type annotations look:

  # Python Example
  name: str = "John"
  age: int = 30
  is_student: bool = False
  
  # Function with type annotations
  def greet(name: str) -> str:
      return f"Hello, {name}!"
  
  # List with type annotation
  numbers: list[int] = [1, 2, 3]
  
  # Dictionary with type annotation
  person: dict[str, int] = {"name": "Alice", "age": 25}
  

  Look familiar? The syntax is surprisingly similar to TypeScript. Both languages treat types as annotations that help developers and tools understand the code, but neither strictly enforces them at runtime (unless you add additional tooling).

  What This Means for You

  If you’re writing JavaScript, stop, and use TypeScript. It’s mature and widely adopted. Now also you can run TypeScript directly in some runtimes like Bun or Deno.

  Type systems were originally omitted from many of these languages because the creators wanted to establish a low barrier to entry, making it significantly easier for people to adopt the language.

  Additionally, computers at the time were much slower, and compiling code with rigorous type systems took a long time, so creators prioritized the speed of the development loop over strict safety.

  However, with the power of modern computers, compilation speed is no longer a concern. Furthermore, the type systems themselves have improved significantly in efficiency and design.

  Since performance is no longer an issue, the industry has shifted back toward using types to gain better structure and safety without the historical downsides.

  Feb 2, 2026 / Programming / Python / javascript / Typescript

  Enjoyed this?

• jQuery 4.0 was released on the 17th and they removed IE10 support. IE10 was first deprecated by Microsoft in January 2016 and fully retired in 2020. You might wonder, “What are they doing still supporting Internet Explorer?” They did say they were going to fully remove support in version 5.

  😆: blog.jquery.com/2026/01/1…

  Jan 28, 2026 / Web-development / javascript