`node --init` spec proposal

[AugustinMauroy]

What is the problem this feature will solve?

Currently npm cli does not set the ESM as default when initiating a project.

The --init allows you to build the basis of a node project without complicating your life.

What is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?

Having a --init that crate a package.json that look like that

{
    "type": "module",
    "scripts": {
        "start": "node script.js",
        "test": "node --test",
        "watch": "node --watch script.js"
    }
}

index.js

import { styleText } from 'node:util';
console.log(

Hello from ${styleText(['bgGreenBright', 'black'], ' node.js ')} 🐢!

)

we should just add json key undersatand by node

REF: https://nodejs.org/en/blog/events/collab-summit-2024-dublin#node---init

[ljharb]

Why would we want to do that? type module isn't necessary to support ESM, it's just to make .js files be ESM - a new project should be using .mjs (it's faster, too).

All of the reasons that npm hasn't added this apply equally to node adding it.

A basic node --init makes sense, but the defaults will likely be quite contentious and are highly unlikely to universally apply.

[AugustinMauroy]

Why would we want to do that? type module isn't necessary to support ESM, it's just to make .js files be ESM - a new project should be using .mjs (it's faster, too).

IMO, we should found a way to avoid mjs file. In future .js files should be ESM.

A basic node --init makes sense, but the defaults will likely be quite contentious and are highly unlikely to universally apply.

I agree with you. But I think we can find a way forward. These default values would make it possible to push people a little more to leave the ESM

[ljharb]

Why? The entire purpose of a file extension for a textual format is to determine how to parse the file, and .mjs is the standard way to do ESM per https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9239

[dario-piotrowicz]

but the defaults will likely be quite contentious and are highly unlikely to universally apply.

I really agree with @ljharb, right off the rip I do not like the proposed defaults 😅

• start specifies a script.js but I might want to use index.js, src/index.js, etc...
• test uses the node test runner, but many project use their own test runners instead
• watch is a script name that I personally dislike since it's not specific enough, especially in bigger projects

so basically if npm init where to produce those scripts I am quite sure that I'd be deleting/overriding them practically every single time 😕 (making my dx worse instead of better)

given how many alternatives there are and different preferences people have I really think that a very good portion of users would fall in the same category as me 🤔

[github-actions]

There has been no activity on this feature request for 5 months. To help maintain relevant open issues, please add the never-stale Mark issue so that it is never considered stale label or close this issue if it should be closed. If not, the issue will be automatically closed 6 months after the last non-automated comment.
For more information on how the project manages feature requests, please consult the feature request management document.