todo: switch yaml libraries

jonschlinkert commented

2021-01-26 14:23:31 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I've spent quite a bit of time reviewing the code in https://github.com/eemeli/yaml, it's amazing. Very well done @eemeli!

If someone wants to do a PR to swap js-yaml for yaml, that would be great. Otherwise I'll do it when I get a chance.

I've spent quite a bit of time reviewing the code in https://github.com/eemeli/yaml, it's amazing. Very well done @eemeli! If someone wants to do a PR to swap js-yaml for [yaml](https://github.com/eemeli/yaml), that would be great. Otherwise I'll do it when I get a chance.

🎉 3

robertmassaioli commented

2021-01-26 19:26:57 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

For those of us that have not read it yet, what's amazing about the code? (Now considering if I should also try it for other projects) And would this require a major version bump because potentially the two yaml libraries behave differently?

jonschlinkert commented

2021-01-28 05:33:30 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

what's amazing about the code?

Thanks for asking!

the code is well written, well organized, and well tested
The documentation is awesome
the API is nice. From basic methods like parse and stringify, to more advanced methods for getting the CST or YAML.Document
loads 20-40ms faster than js-yaml

The only small gripe I have is that the package is published with browser code, which adds 299Kb to the download and should be released separately. But IMHO that's not important enough to dissuade me.

because potentially the two yaml libraries behave differently?

I'm not aware of any differences in expected output, and the comprehensive test suite and documentation indicate that yaml will be a drop-in replacement.

> what's amazing about the code? Thanks for asking! - the code is well written, well organized, and [well tested](https://github.com/eemeli/yaml-test-suite/tree/414181d9e138ff5a384ff84de9999a85dd9412c9) - The [documentation](https://eemeli.org/yaml/#yaml) is awesome - the API is nice. From basic methods like `parse` and `stringify`, to more advanced methods for getting the CST or `YAML.Document` - loads 20-40ms faster than js-yaml The only small gripe I have is that the package is published with browser code, which adds 299Kb to the download and should be released separately. But IMHO that's not important enough to dissuade me. > because potentially the two yaml libraries behave differently? I'm not aware of any differences in expected output, and the comprehensive test suite and documentation indicate that `yaml` will be a drop-in replacement.

👍 1

sakulstra commented

2022-11-15 10:19:38 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@jonschlinkert any chance of merging and releasing this? https://github.com/jonschlinkert/gray-matter/pull/147

remcohaszing commented

2023-12-19 09:20:06 +00:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I'm less concerned about library size and performance. The biggest reason to prefer yaml over js-yaml, is that it's compliant with the YAML spec.

I'm less concerned about library size and performance. The biggest reason to prefer `yaml` over `js-yaml`, is that it's compliant with the YAML spec.

Rows
Columns

todo: switch yaml libraries #114