Security & Software Supply Chain

S03 E05


Security & Software Supply Chain - a devtools discussion with Feross Aboukhadijeh (Socket). Episode 5 (Season 3) of the Console Devtools Podcast.

Episode notes

In this episode we speak to Feross Aboukhadijeh, CEO of Socket, a software supply chain security company. We discuss the risks of using third party dependencies, how JS and NPM could improve their approach to security, whether trust in open source is eroding, and how to improve the overall security posture of your application.

Things mentioned:

Feross is the founder and CEO of Socket, where he's working on a new approach to open source supply chain security. Feross is the author and maintainer of WebTorrent, StandardJS, and 100s of other open source projects which are downloaded 500+ million times per month. Feross is a lecturer at Stanford University where he teaches CS 253 Web Security. Socket, the company Feross started, is auditing every package on npm to detect suspicious changes and block software supply chain attacks. Hundreds of companies use Socket to protect their software applications and critical services from malware and security threats originating in open source code.


Feross Aboukhadijeh: I want to start by saying that most of the time it's fine to use third party code. It's one of these things where it's 99% of the time, you're going to be fine. Most open source maintainers are good people. They're just trying to put out good work. And as a person who's been a maintainer for many years, I don't want to disparage maintainers in any way at all. But unfortunately there are bad actors who are taking advantage of this trust that people have in open source code, because most of the time it's great software and it does exactly what it's supposed to do. When an open source package gets hijacked, and that can happen for many reasons, it can be the maintainer reused their password on another website and that website was breached. It could be that they just chose a bad password. It could be that they added an additional maintainer to the project to help out, and it turns out that person was dishonest and had nefarious intentions. There's a whole host of ways that this can happen.

Feross Aboukhadijeh: I think before the barrier to even starting an open source project was so high that if you found a project, it probably had an email list to email, you probably sent your patches over an email to get them included. There was a lot of work put into making this code available to you. It's not just some fly by night package that just came out of nowhere. Whereas I think NPM is a lot closer to a wiki, where if you find a page, it could have been added 10 minutes ago by some random person you've never heard of, and if you install it, there's no guarantee that it's not going to just immediately cause trouble for you or you make your computer blow up. So it's just very different.

David Mytton (00:05): Welcome to the Console Podcast. I'm David Mytton, co-founder of, a free weekly newsletter highlighting the best and most interesting tools for developers. In this episode I speak with Feross Aboukhadijeh, CEO of, a software supply chain security company. We discussed the risks of using third party dependencies, how JS and NPM could improve their approach to security, whether trust in open source is eroding, and how to improve the overall security posture of your application. We're keeping this to 30 minutes, so let's get started. I'm here with Feross Aboukhadijeh. Feross, thanks for joining the Console Podcast.

Feross Aboukhadijeh (00:46): Hey David, glad to be here.

David Mytton (00:48): Let's start with a brief background. Tell us a little bit about what you're currently doing and how you got here.

Feross Aboukhadijeh (00:54): Yeah, so I'm the founder and the CEO of Socket, which is a tool for supply chain security for open source software. I guess we'll get into a little bit more about what that is on the podcast, but background on me is I spent the last, I don't know, seven, eight years as an open source maintainer, worked on a bunch of different JavaScript projects, including WebTorrent, Standard JS, and hundreds of other tiny NPM libraries, as you do in the NPM ecosystem. And spent time as a maintainer, talking at conferences, working on these different projects, and then seeing how the open source sausage is made, I guess. And that's kind of what led to the inspiration for Socket, was seeing that there were kind of gaps in how open source maintainers secure their packages and how we consume open source packages. And that's kind of what Socket is trying to help with and to solve.

David Mytton (01:45): All right. So developers are used to including libraries to help solve common problems. What are the risks of going to whatever package repository it might be, and then just picking a third party dependency?

Feross Aboukhadijeh (01:59): I want to start by saying that most of the time it's fine to use third party code. It's one of these things where it's 99% of the time, you're going to be fine. Most open source maintainers are good people. They're just trying to put out good work. And as a person who's been a maintainer for many years, I don't want to disparage maintainers in any way at all. But unfortunately there are bad actors who are taking advantage of this trust that people have in open source code, because most of the time it's great software and it does exactly what it's supposed to do. When an open source package gets hijacked, and that can happen for many reasons, it can be the maintainer reused their password on another website and that website was breached. It could be that they just chose a bad password. It could be that they added an additional maintainer to the project to help out, and it turns out that person was dishonest and had nefarious intentions. There's a whole host of ways that this can happen.

It could even be that the maintainer themselves, sometimes they go rogue. There is an example of that in January where some maintainer just kind of decided that he wanted to put malware... If it wasn't malware, it was troll software, it was changing the behavior of the package very severely into the package. So what does this mean for consumers of open source software? Well, what it means is when you're using open source code, it's really not enough to just rely on the trust of that particular maintainer because they might lose control of the package, or they might have shared access with someone who can't be trusted. Or they themselves may have changed in a way that makes the code no longer trustworthy.

So as a user of the open source software, I think we have a responsibility to really treat this code as part of our application, because when you ship code to production, 90% of the lines of code are probably coming from open source. They're probably in your Node modules folder for the JavaScript developers out there. So we're really like shipping the majority of our code as open source. And fundamentally when it's running in that Node process, the Node process doesn't care who wrote the lines of code, it's all running in the same process, it's all your application. I think we need to change the way we think about these dependencies. And the best thing to do would be for everyone to start reading the code, actually looking at what the open source modules are doing, but that's obviously a very tall order and it's a lot to ask from developers. So that's where Socket is trying to help. It's a kind of middle ground between reading all the lines of code yourself or doing nothing. I don't think doing nothing is actually very acceptable going forward.

David Mytton (04:18): That makes sense. And I suppose it's because developers have chosen to include a third party library in their code and they technically should take responsibility for that, and the old saying about open source is that you can read the source, you can check that there are no bugs or fix bugs themselves, read the code, make sure you know what it's doing, but very few people actually do that.

Feross Aboukhadijeh (04:39): And it's not really developers' faults in some ways. I mean, developers already have a ton of work to do. There's already just a million things to be doing and code to be refactoring and improving and features to be shipping. So it's really a lot to ask. And that's not helped by the fact that the average NPM package has 79 dependencies. So it's not just auditing the individual package, it's like, "Okay, what does this thing depend on? And what do those things depend on?" And it's quite a tree to follow in a lot of cases. So we need tooling to help with this, I think. People don't want to be auditing 79 packages every time they add a new dependency, not to mention every time they update.

So whenever you update, too, that's where a lot of these supply chain attacks have so much power is people have been trusting a package for years, and then suddenly a new version comes out that contains a bunch of extra code to read your files, to read your environment variables, send them off to a remote server with some network requests, to execute new executable files that were never part of the initial behavior of the package. That's something that you want to really ideally catch by looking at a diff, really, of what changed in the package. It's just a lot of work to do, and you got to be an expert in the package and know what it's doing. So Socket is kind of an automated way to highlight whenever something significantly changes in the behavior of a package. Socket can call that out to you. So that most of the dependencies that you add, or the updates that you merge into your project aren't going to flag anything because everything is normal. The package is behaving the way it always has.

But for those rare updates where a package suddenly starts doing a ton of these things like including obfuscated code and running shell commands and pulling environment variables and files and sending them off somewhere, that's such a departure from the way that the package behaved, that using automation, we can actually just call that out to you and say, "Hey, wait a minute. This update is not like the others. Maybe take a closer look at this one."

David Mytton (06:27): What are the common routes to compromise that you see or that you can detect as part of this automation?

Feross Aboukhadijeh (06:33): So the number one thing that happens when someone hijacks a package, the bad guys, what they do is add an install script. If you've used NPM before, maybe you've heard of install scripts. They're kind of a quirk of NPM. They're not actually that common in other package managers. But basically what an install script is, is a way to tell the package manager that after you've installed this package, I want you to run some shell script or some Node script to do additional steps after the code has been downloaded. The legitimate use for these is that oftentimes there's native code for some packages that needs to be compiled. Usually someone will rewrite part of their JavaScript package in C or something like that, or Rust to get better performance for certain functions. And they want to be able to have that code get compiled for the particular developer system after the package has been downloaded.

So that's a legitimate purpose, but when you look at malware or supply chain attacks that have happened in the last few years, there was a paper that came out in 2021, which was presented at a prestigious security conference, that was basically looking at what happens to these hijacked packages? What do the attackers do? I think it was 59 or 60% of hijacked packages get an install script added to them when the hijack happens. So that's one perfect example of like... That's a thing that you can really detect with automation.

I mean, a package that you've been using for two years suddenly decides today that it needs to run code upon installation? Maybe that happens sometimes for legitimate purposes, but it's so rare that whenever that happens, I think it's better to err on the side of caution and just tell the developer that, "Hey, there's a new install script. By the way, here's a link you can click to go to that script and just look at it and see, does it look like a reasonable thing? Why does this module suddenly need to compile some C code, or did they improve the performance? Maybe that's what they did. Great. Then you don't have anything to worry about." But for that rare case where it's actually been taken over, that can really save your bacon.

David Mytton (08:26): So this is an interesting quirk of the JavaScript ecosystem, I suppose, and specifically to do with how NPM and the package manager there works. Do you think that's an inherent weakness in how JavaScript does it, and this is the reason why we're seeing so many of these vulnerabilities within NPM packages, or do you think it's an abuse of a mechanism that really does have legitimate uses?

Feross Aboukhadijeh (08:50): So I definitely think the mechanism... I mean, it's used legitimately. I think there's probably a better way to design this so that the package registry itself can pre-compile all the native bindings for all the potential systems that users will be installing stuff from. It would be a lot to ask of the package manager to basically go and do that for everybody, but I think it would massively improve the security of the ecosystem because then they could remove install scripts as a feature from NPM entirely. That's basically the main legitimate use for it. So if they could just build that into the package manager on their end, then we wouldn't need every different client to be having this risk of code running right away on installation. But the thing to keep in mind is if a package is hijacked, it's still possible to do a ton of damage even without an install script, because usually when you're downloading and installing a package, you're planning to import the package.

So it just means that now the attacker can't run code right away, but as soon as you import it, they can deliver their goodies to your computer. So it's just going to move the problem somewhere else. So you're still going to need to actually fundamentally look at the code, whether with your human eyes or with an automated tool like Socket to actually see what it's doing. One other thing I want to say is I think some people might also say that it's a problem that's specific to NPM for other reasons, not because of this install script thing, but rather because people in the NPM community tend to publish a ton of tiny packages, so the dependency trees can get pretty crazy, and a hello world for React is hundreds or maybe even tipping over a thousand packages sometimes.

So I think there's definitely some legitimacy to that argument because the way that people split packages up in the NPM ecosystem does mean that you are trusting more maintainers overall. But I would say the kind of flip side to that is that a lot of times in these discussions people will say that JavaScript programmers have forgotten how to code. They have to import a library to do anything. They can't even write 10 lines of code before they have to go reach for a library. That's what some people will say. I don't agree with that. I think that there's often really good reasons to pull stuff out into a separate package, and one famous example that people love to point to is the left-pad incident, where people were importing a library to basically pad a string with extra spaces on the left side. And people said, "Oh, I could write this as a one liner. Why would anyone install a package to do this?"

But if you actually look at their implementations, they had tons of bugs. Even something as simple as padding a string, there were a ton of bugs in the different implementations that people were posting and saying, "Oh look, I could do this. It's so easy." So a lot of times there's actually surprising subtlety in simple stuff like that, and to handle all the cases and to think about the performance, especially even as the JavaScript engines are changing. You get free bug fixes and you get free security updates and you get free performance improvements when you depend on a third party library versus copying it into your own code base. So it's not a clear 100% win to just say, "I'm going to not use the dependencies. I'm going to just copy everything in." You really do lose a lot, too.

I guess the last thing I'll say about NPM too, is NPM really solved this problem of dependency hell for developers in a way that has encouraged people to create a lot more dependencies. So what I mean by that is back before NPM, most package managers, let's take Python, for example, had this, I would say it's a problem, where when you install a package foo at version one in your project, then to go depend on another package, let's say bar, if bar also wants to use foo, it needs to make sure to use foo version one, because you're already using foo version one in your project, so all other dependencies that need to rely on foo must use foo version one. And what this means is say one of your dependencies wants to update and use foo version two, well now you're screwed. You're basically totally screwed. The package manager will say something wants foo version one and something else wants foo version two. I can't install both of those. Sorry. The whole thing is messed up. You can't proceed, basically. It just throws up its hands and says, "Sorry."

So NPM came along and said, "Well hey, this is silly. Why do we want to put developers into this awkward position? Let's just make it install both versions, and we'll give any of the packages that want foo version one, we'll give them version one, and the other ones that want version two, we'll give them version two." Because of that, it meant that people could start depending on dependencies more freely, because if I'm a maintainer and I depend on a new package, I don't have to worry that I'm going to cause trouble for my users by making it really hard for them to use my package. And for that reason people added dependencies more freely.

Whereas in the Python world, people wouldn't add a 10 line dependency. They would copy those 10 lines into their project to avoid adding a dependency and creating trouble for their users. So it developed a different culture. I'm biased here, but I think on the whole it's probably good that we don't create this situation for users. Although there's obviously the downsides we're talking about on the show, which is that you end up now trusting a ton more people. So that's where the security comes in as a problem. Anyway, I just wanted to be fair to the NPM community and make that argument, even though obviously there's all the security problems that come from this design that we're trying to fix with Socket. So yeah, that's my story.

David Mytton (13:47): Yeah, that makes sense. So I suppose as the efficiency of NPM has improved or at least it's possible to use it in more circumstances, it makes more sense for people to include libraries and then you are trusting more developers to apply best practices. I suppose thinking back over the years, software development has been somewhat of a niche compared to maybe other industries, but it's really become much more mainstream, there are much larger companies, there are more engineers building more software and more open source being used. Do you think that changes that implicit model of trust there's been there historically, where you could almost just blindly trust anything that was released just because it was such a small community?

Feross Aboukhadijeh (14:30): Yeah, it does change the model for sure. I think before the barrier to even starting an open source project was so high that if you found a project, it probably had an email list to email, you probably sent your patches over an email to get them included. There was a lot of work put into making this code available to you. It's not just some fly by night package that just came out of nowhere. Whereas I think NPM is a lot closer to a wiki, where if you find a page, it could have been added 10 minutes ago by some random person you've never heard of, and if you install it, there's no guarantee that it's not going to just immediately cause trouble for you or you make your computer blow up. So it's just very different.

To play the devil's advocate here it's obviously good that anyone can participate in open source and it's not as confusing and there's a lower barrier to entry. So I do like that, but it does mean that people should probably think differently about open source. Just because something is on NPM doesn't mean anyone's even looked at it. There's malware removed all the time. Actually, this might be interesting to people. So at Socket, we started following the NPM feed, so we ingest every single NPM package so we can analyze it. One of the things that happens when you start doing that is sometimes NPM deletes packages and they do it for security reasons. So as we follow this feed, we get these delete notifications from them, so we can actually see exactly what's being deleted. When usually something is deleted because some security researcher has found there to be malware in it or a supply chain attack or something like that. So we can actually get this nice feed of what is actually happening, what is getting deleted on a daily basis.

If people are curious to see that, you can go to, and there's a link at the bottom of the page called removed packages, and you can click that and see exactly what's been removed today. And it's pretty crazy stuff. Sometimes there's just like blobs of crazy obfuscated code. You don't know what it's doing. Sometimes it's just a clear, simple example of let's just steal the process.env, so the environment variables, and just send them to an IP address, something straightforward like that. There's all kinds of stuff like that in there that you can poke around. So yeah, the scale is quite surprising, I would say. Just like how there's... I think when we looked before there were 700 packages removed in the last 30 days. So just a lot of this stuff getting published is just this kind of garbage that needs to get removed.

David Mytton (16:46): What kind of security training or education do you think is needed for developers, because you could just say, "Well, pin the packages at the version you expect, and then you can examine all the or future updates." And would that remove just a large number of automated vulnerabilities?

Feross Aboukhadijeh (17:02): Sure. I mean, pinning your packages is a great idea. Everyone should be using a package lock file for sure. I still think you have the problem of how do you evaluate a new package that you're thinking about adding and how do you evaluate an update? And I think at that point, you're now looking at a ton of work to actually do a true audit of this code. So I think everyone should pin, but as soon as you throw Dependabot in there or one of these bots that will come along and try to update your dependencies, then you'll end up with 5 to 10 of these PRs every day, just trying to move your dependencies around. So it's funny because keeping up to date is actually usually good. I mean, it means that you're getting the bug fixes, the performance improvements, you're getting the security fixes, and when there's this security issue down the line, oftentimes it's a lot easier to update to the new version if you're already on a pretty new version. That way you don't have to like to do a bunch of updates for unrelated things just to get that security fixed.

So in general it's pretty good to stay on the latest version, but the downside is now you're more susceptible to supply chain attacks because supply chain attacks have a completely different kind of threat model. So with vulnerabilities, which are different, vulnerabilities are these known things. A security researcher found a problem, and the goal is basically to get onto a new version of the package, which has fixed the vulnerability. But with the supply chain attack, the problem really is that a code just came out, it's a new version of the package, and no one has really opened it up yet to see that it's doing something naughty. And the faster you update to that new version, the more vulnerable you are, the more in trouble you are because you basically updated to a version that was published maybe a couple days ago and no one has actually found that there's an attack in there yet. So you're just an unlucky person for updating too quickly.

So for that reason, actually, some really security sensitive projects like Signal, for example, Signal, the desktop app for Signal, what they do is they just keep their dependencies six months out of date and try to hope that that means that most supply chain attacks will have been caught by the time they update. Obviously they also have to be pretty careful about updating and to fix really bad known security vulnerabilities as well. So they have to balance this in an interesting way, but I think that's really where something automated like Socket can help. You basically try to stay on the latest version and then just be told when something in the package itself is doing something suspicious. I really do think that's the right trade off. It's not to stay six months out of date.

Because this is another interesting stat for people. That same paper that I mentioned earlier that was talking about the security problems, they found that the average malware stays on NPM for hundreds of days before it's found. So the average length of time is actually super long. It's not this thing that just gets caught really quickly. It's something that people are finding malware on NPM from sometimes over a year ago, and it finally gets taken down. So I don't even think that the strategy of just not updating your dependencies for six months is really foolproof. It probably helps, but it's not a guarantee that you're not going to still install something bad.

David Mytton (20:02): Where should the responsibility be then? So you've also got the library developers and their security practices. You've got the package repository, which sounds like there could be quite a lot more done by the people running those. And then there's the code developer themselves who has to audit all of their dependencies. How do you see that split, and is there anyone else that needs to be involved?

Feross Aboukhadijeh (20:23): I think it's the kind of thing that everyone needs to help with. So it's partially on the library developers to vet their dependencies and to choose good quality dependencies. It's partly on the package repository to actually do more than they're currently doing to find malware when it's published. They do somewhat scan packages now, but they're really not very good at finding stuff. Stuff gets through all the time, and that's why we keep seeing these headlines. So I think it's partially on them also to improve the install script situation as we talked about.

And then I think the developer themselves also should probably change their mindset around how they think about dependencies. I think developers need to think about dependencies as part of their app. They're not these just magical code that's descended from upon high written by the sages and you can just use it and it's all going to be fine. It's just code written by people just like you and they make mistakes. They don't set their passwords to be strong sometimes. There's different problems that happen. The computer gets compromised. Their credentials get stolen. This kind of stuff can happen. So I think everyone needs to do better. It's really a community thing. I think really everyone chipping in different ways can improve things.

David Mytton (21:30): What security tools do you see developers using or what should they be using?

Feross Aboukhadijeh (21:35): Well, I'm biased. I'll tell everyone that they should check out Socket at, which is the project I'm working on. So Socket helps because it helps identify when a package update is particularly suspicious. If you throw that in there, you add it to your repository as a GitHub app, then you have this virtual security person reviewing all your PRs and calling out when it finds something particularly egregious in the pull request. So when it sees a dependency getting added that, for example, looks like a typo. If you installed Reactt with two Ts or something like that by accident, you made a typo. We can tell you, "Hey, the package you're installing gets 300 downloads a year. Are you sure you wanted to install that and not React, which is one letter away? And that's the thing that doesn't slow developers down. It doesn't block them from doing their work. It actually helps them because it's purely a piece of information that you're probably really glad that you've been told before that PR lands and then bad things happen.

And then actually this is not theoretical. We actually found this package called Browserlist, which is a typo of the true package, Browserslist. Browserlist is not a very easy name to remember. People type browser list all the time, because it's just this weird plural in the middle of the package name. So we found actually Preact, which is this really popular React alternative. It focuses on small package size and really small bundle sizes. They were using both Browserlist and Browserslist, which is weird because one of them, the incorrect one actually appears to have been malware at some point in the past, because if you look at the version history, the very first version that's currently on NPM shows that it was removed for security reasons. And the current version just throws an exception and tells you, "Hey, you installed the wrong thing," so no reason for anyone to be using this thing, but it still somehow gets like hundreds of thousands of downloads a year because of typos where people will type the wrong one and then they'll type it again, and they'll now they'll have both of them installed, and this is just unnecessary risk.

So we went and told that project Preact, you're installing this unnecessary package and they fixed it. I think Socket's a no-brainer to me. Obviously asterisk on that is I'm biased. But I would say other tips for people would be everyone should be using a linter, or if not that, TypeScript. If you don't use TypeScript and use a linter, I don't think anyone should be writing raw JavaScript without a linter at least looking at their code. I'm also biased, but I would recommend StandardJS as a linter to use because it doesn't require any configuration. So you can get started with it by just installing a single package and then you get a bunch of nice rules out of the box.

And a linter is more than just about style. So if you're using something like Prettier, don't be confused and think that's sufficient. Prettier is only about code formatting and spacing. A linter actually looks for actual errors in your code as well, because it does a more in-depth static analysis. So you can get quite a lot of really nice help for your code by turning on those features in ESLint, or using something like Standard, which will turn them on for you automatically. And you can catch a lot of bugs, including security bugs in your code by using a linter.

Also people should be keeping their dependencies up to date. So something like Dependabot to get security fixes and to keep your dependencies up to date is a great idea. And then I think just general education around security and how to write code securely is probably the other thing people should do. It's something that you actually have to learn a little bit. It's a mindset shift to really think like an attacker. And I think that's really the best way to make sure that you write good code and you code defensively is to actually understand the other side of it. So what does an attacker think? So when you're writing code, you're always thinking, what would I do if I was an attacker? How would I abuse this function? How would I pass in arguments that I wasn't expecting? As you're coding, you want to be thinking of both sides of that. You want to be thinking of this adversary who's trying to own as you're coding.

You can only get that from practice thinking like an attacker. So I would say people should probably like buy a security book or take a security course if people want to take a course on web security. I'll shout out my own course. I taught a class at Stanford in 2021 and also in 2019 on web security. The videos are online for the 2019 version of the web security course. So if you just search Stanford web security, you can find the videos on YouTube, or search CS 253, which is the name of the course. But there's a ton of stuff in there for how to think like an attacker and what are all the different things that can happen as far as web apps are concerned. So I don't know, those are the things that come to mind. Maybe I'm missing something, but I think those are probably good starting points for people to improve their security training.

David Mytton (26:03): And is there anything specific that library developers should do to improve the security of their projects?

Feross Aboukhadijeh (26:09): I mean, there's too many things to mention. I mean, I think making sure that only the people who need access to the package have access, so removing old maintainers, I think that's something where there's probably the package manager could help with that. Because I think part of the reason people keep old maintainers around on packages is because they want to honor that person's contribution and they want the face to show up there, so if there was some way to have an alumni section for maintainers, so they still get the credit but they don't need to have the access, which just adds risk would be great.

Using more tooling. So depending on the maturity of the project, using something like a fuzzer to try a bunch of inputs and get the project to crash, writing more complete tests, making sure that you get to 100% test coverage if that's possible. And like I said, thinking differently about the dependencies, so trying to really at least do what you can to make sure the dependencies that you're depending on have some basic measure of quality. That they're maintained, they don't have known vulnerabilities. That you hopefully have looked at the code, at least you've opened it up, and you agree with that person's philosophy on... This goes actually beyond security, but just for the quality of your project, knowing that the dependencies you're using are designed well, architected well. They're not just a pile of risk waiting to explode at some future point. That the design itself is actually sound. That's something that I care a lot about when I'm choosing dependencies for my libraries.

David Mytton (27:32): Okay. Well, before we wrap up, I have two lightning questions for you. The first one is what interesting tools are you playing around with at the moment? Could be dev tools or could be something broader.

Feross Aboukhadijeh (27:43): Maybe I'll just say something obvious, I'll say Type Script, because I actually had avoided TypeScript for most of my career. While everyone was getting on the TypeScript train a few years ago, I was pretty against it because I just like the ability to open up a file and just edit it without having this build step, and I've been hoping and praying that we could get to a place where we don't need build steps in JavaScript. And we keep getting all these nice features in the language, so you need Babble less and less these days, but then with JSX and now with TypeScript, it's like we still have these remaining things that we can't get rid of the build step for.

With ESM coming out now, there's so much potential for being able to just import something and not have this build step. So I was pushing back against TypeScript, because I just wanted to not have that in my code bases that I work on for as long as I could avoid it. But there's just so many advantages to the TypeScript way once you actually just bite the bullet and learn it. And for libraries, I would say less so. Actually I think for libraries I do like pure JavaScript ones, especially for simple packages because it makes contributing to them easier, but who knows, maybe my opinion will change on that as well.

But certainly for big team projects where you have a ton of different developers, there's a big code base, the types are just so helpful getting everyone on the same page. This is probably preaching to the choir to a lot of the audience, but for me it was a revelation. When we started working on Socket we decided to do everything in TypeScript and it's great. So that's probably the thing I like learning the most all the time these days. It's probably a really obvious choice though, for people. Sorry, I don't have a more interesting answer.

David Mytton (29:14): No, that's fine. Great. And then secondly, what's your current tech setup? What hardware and software are you using on a daily basis?

Feross Aboukhadijeh (29:22): I used to love the little tiny MacBook 12 inch, which was super good for travel. And I used to travel a lot more and go to all these JavaScript conferences. But ever since COVID I just don't travel that much, so I got a bigger computer. I have the new MacBook Pro with the M1 chip in the 16 inch form factor. I maxed it out as much as I could, so it's a ridiculous machine. It's the most I've ever spent on a computer in my whole life. But it is also the best computer I've had. The main thing that I think JavaScript developers should get excited about with the M1 chip in particular is the single core performance, because a lot of the things you do are not using multiple processes in Node. So your Babble build step is happening in a single process. So it doesn't matter how many cores you have. There's only so fast you can go with that, even if you have eight cores.

But with the M1 chip, the single core performance is just so much better than any other chip on the market that I've seen that you actually do notice your builds speed up so much more than any other... Going from four cores to eight cores, you're not going to notice that much of a difference because usually you're probably not even using all four cores to do a build. Maybe you are, who knows. Maybe some people have eight things getting compiled or whatever, every time they hit save. But I think for most projects the big thing you're going to feel is that single core performance. I like it a lot.

I just got the Studio Display from Apple. I know I'm chilling for Apple hard here, but it's a pretty great monitor. It's super overpriced, but it looks really nice and it has the same pixel density as the screen on the laptop, so you get the same Retina, and you don't have to deal with... When you put your monitor next to your laptop and the difference in the way they look is so different. I like that it's just all Retina and it all looks good. And then I just have a typical Logitech Performance mouse, standing desk, typical Apple keyboard. Nothing too fancy there.

David Mytton (31:05): Well unfortunately that's all we've got time for. Thanks for joining us, Feross.

Feross Aboukhadijeh (31:09): Yeah, thanks David. It's been really awesome to be able to share all this with everybody. Thanks for having me.

David Mytton (31:14): Thanks for listening to the Console Dev Tools Podcast. Please let us know what you think on Twitter. I'm @DavidMytton, and you can follow @consoledotdev. Don't forget to subscribe and rate us in your podcast player. And if you're playing around with or building any interesting dev tools, please get in touch. Our email is in the show notes. See you next time.

David Mytton
About the author

David Mytton is Co-founder & CEO of Console. In 2009, he founded and was CEO of Server Density, a SaaS cloud monitoring startup acquired in 2018 by edge compute and cyber security company, StackPath. He is also researching sustainable computing in the Department of Engineering Science at the University of Oxford, and has been a developer for 15+ years.

About Console

Console is the place developers go to find the best tools. Each week, our weekly newsletter picks out the most interesting tools and new releases. We keep track of everything - dev tools, devops, cloud, and APIs - so you don't have to.