Keeping “require” modules DRY in Node

Update: See the follow-up on StackOverflow. I agree with those who rallied against use of global, but no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater; as shown in that thread, we can instead use “eval” to keep it DRY.

You see a lot of NodeJS code like this:


  1. connect = require 'connect'
  2. express = require 'express'
  3. redis = require 'redis'
  4. sys = require 'sys'
  5. coffee = require 'coffee-script'
  6. fs = require 'fs'

BTW this is CoffeeScript, not pure JavaScript, but the same logic applies.

The point is, Node’s module system gives you a layer of abstraction you probably don’t need. 9 times out of 10, people just assign a module to a variable by the same name. You would, wouldn’t you?!! You don’t have to think about alternatives, and you can easily cut and paste other people’s code. And it’s now just an industry convention.

So why not practice convention over configuration, and keep things DRY with the following idiom:


  1. "underscore,connect,express,redis,sys,coffee-script,fs"
  2.   .split(',').forEach (lib) -> global[lib] = require lib

Thanks to the “global” object, which is like the “window” object in the browser, we can easily require new libraries without unnecessary clutter.

And – as with any decent convention-over-configuration setup – we can still override the convention if we desire:


  1. _ = underscore

If HTML Used Convention Over Configuration …

Browsers would automatically pull in CSS and JS according to the filename and I would no longer have to look for an example every time I need a link or script tag.

In the absence of any other spec, /abc/def.html would cause the browser to look for /abc/def.css and /abc/site.css and /site.css. And then it would look for the same, but in JS – /abc/def.js, /abc/site.js, and /site.js. If I had all the time in the world, I’d make an Apache filter to do just that.

This would slow things down a little, but have you noticed – the world is becoming faster? It’s an another example of abundance thinking. Also, if it was a standard, it would not really slow things down as browsers and servers would develop protocols for speeding things up.

So I created a little Ajax web app template to put all the skeleton Ajax code on one page.


     <title>Hello World!</title>

 &lt;script type=&quot;text/javascript&quot; src=&quot;app.js&quot;&gt;&lt;/script&gt;
 &lt;link rel=&quot;stylesheet&quot; type=&quot;text/css&quot; href=&quot;app.css&quot;/&gt;

</head> <body> <h1>Hello World!</h1> <input id="search" name="search" />

</body> </html>


body { background-color: white; }
div.error { font-color: red; }

search { width: 200px; }


function $(id) { return document.getElementById(id); }

window.onload = function() { $("search").onclick = function() { alert("The search begins!"); } }