💡 RFC: Default Package.json to "dev" command instead of "start" command

[alteredorange]

Motivation

This might just bug me, and only me, but... Most frameworks I'm familiar with tend to use "dev' instead of "start" to start the development server. The Astro command is even astro dev not astro start.

Proposed Solution

Possible solutions

It would be great to default the package.json command to: "dev": "astro dev", to keep things consistent with most other modern frameworks.

Then if you ever have a production preview in Astro, you could us "start":"astro preview" or "preview":"astro preview" to start that process.

Alternatives considered

Just leave it as is, as I might be the only one this bothers.

Risks, downsides, and/or tradeoffs

Currently the only risk is that the command doesn't match the actual astro cli command and doesn't match up with most modern frameworks today.

Detailed Design

No response

Open Questions

No response

Help make it happen!

• I am willing to submit a PR to implement this change.
• I am willing to submit a PR to implement this change, but would need some guidance.
• I am not willing to submit a PR to implement this change.

[natemoo-re]

I'm in favor of this change! I think you're right that this is the most common pattern.

[n7trd]

I'm also for "dev".
Sometimes if i switch between npm projects i have think... "start what? dev mode? production server?"

[L1lith]

In my experience the start command generally refers to starting the server in production specifically

[jasikpark]

As a -1 my main experience is w/ yarn start as the dev server, I haven't seen an overwhelming difference either way

[natemoo-re]

Here are the scripts from notable projects, for context.

next.js uses dev, start for production

"scripts": {
  "dev": "next",
  "build": "next build",
  "start": "next start"
}

nuxt.js uses dev, start for production

"scripts": {
  "dev": "nuxt",
  "build": "nuxt build",
  "start": "nuxt start"
}

Vite uses dev, serve for production

"scripts": {
  "dev": "vite",
  "build": "vite build",
  "serve": "vite preview"
}

Snowpack uses start

"scripts": {
  "start": "snowpack dev",
  "build": "snowpack build"
}

Microsite uses start, serve for production

"scripts": {
  "start": "microsite",
  "build": "microsite build",
  "serve": "microsite build --serve"
}

WMR uses start, serve for production

"scripts": {
  "start": "wmr",
  "build": "wmr build --prerender",
  "serve": "wmr serve"
}

Gatsby uses start or develop, serve for production

"scripts": {
  "build": "gatsby build",
  "develop": "gatsby develop",
  "start": "npm run develop",
  "serve": "gatsby serve"
}

[JuanM04]

I think that dev is more explicit and more common than start for the development server.

"scripts": {
  "dev": "astro dev",
  "build": "astro build",
  "serve": "astro serve"
}

[aFuzzyBear]

I have to confess it thru me at first, kinda use to typing in yarn dev and yarn build

[drwpow]

I think we’re all in favor of this! Would love a PR to make this change in our templates.

[jonathantneal]

This issue resolves to support dev as in npm run dev or yarn dev, but I don’t see what it resolves to do with start. For npm users, npm start is a well-known shorthand.

After this change, which would you expect?

1. npm start does nothing. Only done in Vite. Con: Waste of a helpful shorthand for npm users.
2. npm start mirrors npm run dev. Only done in Gatsby. Con: Now there are 2 commands for the same process (2.1. which will docs favor?).
3. npm start mirrors npm run serve. Mirrors Next/Nuxt. Con: The helpful shorthand is for servers but not humans?
4. Something else entirely.

[drwpow]

RFC Call: options:

1. "start": "echo "use yarn dev atm", (start does nothing)
2. "start": "astro dev" (start is an alias)

Decision: #2, but we have yarn dev in all docs