Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
AWS CodeCommit vs npm: What are the differences?
Introduction
In this Markdown code, we will discuss the key differences between AWS CodeCommit and npm.
Service Purpose: AWS CodeCommit is a source control service that allows users to privately store and manage Git repositories, securely integrating with other AWS services. On the other hand, npm is a package manager used for JavaScript programming language, facilitating the installation and management of dependencies and packages for Node.js projects.
Focus on Version Control vs Dependency Management: AWS CodeCommit primarily focuses on version control, enabling teams to collaborate and manage code changes effectively, with features like branching, merging, and pull requests. In contrast, npm is centered on dependency management, providing easy access to libraries and packages for developers to incorporate into their projects.
Integration with Other AWS Services: AWS CodeCommit seamlessly integrates with various AWS services such as AWS CodeBuild, AWS CodePipeline, and AWS CodeDeploy, enabling a streamlined CI/CD pipeline for developers. npm, on the other hand, is not inherently integrated with AWS services but can be utilized within various development environments.
Access Control and Security Features: AWS CodeCommit offers robust access control mechanisms, allowing users to define fine-grained permissions for repository access, authentication, and encryption of data at rest. npm, while providing some security features, does not offer the same level of built-in access control and encryption options as AWS CodeCommit.
Pricing Model: AWS CodeCommit follows a pay-as-you-go model, where users are charged based on repository storage and data transfer. In comparison, npm operates on a freemium model, with a free tier for public packages and a paid subscription for additional features and private package hosting.
Community and Ecosystem: npm boasts a vast community of developers and a rich ecosystem of packages, making it a popular choice for JavaScript developers looking to leverage existing libraries. In contrast, AWS CodeCommit is more specialized for teams working within the AWS cloud environment, focusing on secure version control and collaboration within that ecosystem.
In Summary, AWS CodeCommit and npm differ in service purpose, focus, integration, access control, pricing model, and community ecosystem.
From a StackShare Community member: “I’m a freelance web developer (I mostly use Node.js) and for future projects I’m debating between npm or Yarn as my default package manager. I’m a minimalist so I hate installing software if I don’t need to- in this case that would be Yarn. For those who made the switch from npm to Yarn, what benefits have you noticed? For those who stuck with npm, are you happy you with it?"
We use Yarn because it allows us to more simply manage our node_modules. It also simplifies commands and increases speed when installing modules. Our teams module download time was cut in half after switching from NPM to Yarn. We now require all employees to use Yarn (to prevent errors with package-lock.json and yarn.lock).
I use npm since new version is pretty fast as well (Yarn may be still faster a bit but the difference isn't huge). No need for other dependency and mainly Yarn sometimes do not work. Sometimes when I want to install project dependencies I got error using Yarn but with npm everything is installed correctly.
p.s.
I am not sure about the performance of the latest version of npm, whether it is different from my understanding of it below. Because I use npm very rarely when I had the following knowledge.
------⏬
I use Yarn because, first, yarn is the first tool to lock the version. Second, although npm also supports the lock version, when you use npm to lock the version, and then use package-lock.json on other systems, package-lock.json Will be modified. You understand what I mean, when you deploy projects based on Git...
I use npm because I also mainly use React and TypeScript. Since several typings (from DefinitelyTyped) depend on the React typings, Yarn tends to mess up which leads to duplicate libraries present (different versions of the same type definition), which hinders the Typescript compiler. Npm always resolves to a single version per transitive dependency. At least that's my experience with both.
As far as I know Yarn is a super module of NPM. But it still needs npm to run.
Yarn was developed by Facebook's guys to fix some npm issues and performance.
If you use the last version of npm most of this problem does not exist anymore.
You can choose the option which makes you more confortable. I like using yarn because I'm used to it.
In the end the packages will be the same. Just try both and choose the one you feel more confortable. :)
I use npm because its packaged with node installation and handles npm tokens in CI/CD tools for private packages/libraries.
I am a minimalist too. I once had issues with installing Nuxt.js using NPM so I had to install Yarn but I also found that the Dev experience was much better
Yarn made it painless for the team to sync on versions of packages that we use on the project <3
I use Yarn because it outputs nice progress messages with cute emoji and installs packages quickly if the package is cached. Also, Yarn creates yarn.lock
file which makes the developer use the consistent environment.
I use npm because its the official package manager for Node. It's reliability, security and speed has increased over time so the battle is over!
We tend to stick to npm, yarn is only a fancy alternative, not 10x better. Using a self -hosted private repository (via sinopia/npm-mirror) make package locking (mostly) pointless.
I use Yarn because it process my dependencies way faster, predictable deps resolution order, upgrade-interactive is very handy + some Yarn specific features (workspaces, Plug’n’Play alternative installation strategy) ...
You should use whichever had the best DX (developer experience) for your team. If you are doing a massive front-end project, consider yarn if not only because it makes it a snap to go from zero to ready. What some people say about npm
being more stable or easier for smaller projects is highly true as well. (not to mention, you sometimes have to install yarn) But, note that official NodeJS Docker images ship with both npm and yarn. If you want to use yarn, put package-lock=false
and optionally save-exact=true
in your project's .npmrc
file. Compare whether you prefer the ergonomics of yarn global add
over npm install -g
or see fewer meaningless warnings for the specific set of dependencies you leverage.
I use npm because it has a lot of community support and the performance difference with alternative tool is not so significant for me.
As we have to build the application for many different TV platforms we want to split the application logic from the device/platform specific code. Previously we had different repositories and it was very hard to keep the development process when changes were done in multiple repositories, as we had to synchronize code reviews as well as merging and then updating the dependencies of projects. This issues would be even more critical when building the project from scratch what we did at Joyn. Therefor to keep all code in one place, at the same time keeping in separated in different modules we decided to give a try to monorepo. First we tried out lerna which was fine at the beginning, but later along the way we had issues with adding new dependencies which came out of the blue and were not easy to fix. Next round of evolution was yarn workspaces, we are still using it and are pretty happy with dev experience it provides. And one more advantage we got when switched to yarn workspaces that we also switched from npm to yarn what improved the state of the lock file a lot, because with npm package-lock file was updated every time you run npm install
, frequent updates of package-lock file were causing very often merge conflicts. So right now we not just having faster dependencies installation time but also no conflicts coming from lock file.
This was no real choice - we switched the moment Yarn was available, and never looked back. Yarn is the only reasonable frontend package manager that's actually being developed. They even aim to heal the node_modules madness with v2! Npm is just copying its ideas on top of introducing massive bugs with every change.
Pros of AWS CodeCommit
- Free private repos44
- IAM integration26
- Pay-As-You-Go Pricing24
- Amazon feels the most Secure20
- Repo data encrypted at rest19
- I can make repository by myself if I have AWS account11
- Faster deployments when using other AWS services11
- AWS CodePipeline integration8
- Codebuild integration6
- Does not support web hooks yet! :(6
- Cost Effective4
- No Git LFS! Dealbreaker for me2
- Elastic Beanstalk Integration2
- Integrated with AWS Ecosystem2
- Integration via SQS/SNS for events (replaces webhooks)1
- IAM1
- Issue tracker1
- Available in Ireland (Dublin) region1
- CodeDeploy Integration1
- CodeCommit Trigger for an AWS Lambda Function1
- Open source friendly1
- Only US Region1
- Ui0
Pros of npm
- Best package management system for javascript648
- Open-source382
- Great community327
- More packages than rubygems, pypi, or packagist148
- Nice people matter112
- As fast as yarn but really free of facebook6
- Audit feature6
- Good following4
- Super fast1
- Stability1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of AWS CodeCommit
- UI sucks12
- SLOW4
- No Issue Tracker3
- Bad diffing/no blame2
- NO LFS support2
- No fork2
- No webhooks2
- Can't download file from UI1
- Only time based triggers1
- Accident-prone UI0
Cons of npm
- Problems with lockfiles5
- Bad at package versioning and being deterministic5
- Node-gyp takes forever3
- Super slow1