I don't think the left-pad problem wasn't about package namespacing it was about the ability to unpublish packages as well the prevalence of micropackages caused by lack of a decent standard library.
Also npm's bad policy/decision to transfer control of package in the name of predictability(this should probably be avoided for packages that aren't malicious. You could argue for seizing broken/trivial and unmaintained packages that have a good name but even then it might be best to leave well enough alone).
I suppose you're talking about the original dispute which led the developer to unpublish his libraries (which npm stupidly allowed, and cargo didn't). There's a smaller chance of a company wanting a random package namespace then a package name but its not impossible (think Mike Rowe Soft vs Microsoft)
> I don't think the left-pad problem wasn't about package namespacing it was about the ability to unpublish packages as well the prevalence of micropackages caused by lack of a decent standard library.
It was "about" cavalier approach to the dependency supply chain. A dependency disappearing outright is just one of many failure modes it has.
Also npm's bad policy/decision to transfer control of package in the name of predictability(this should probably be avoided for packages that aren't malicious. You could argue for seizing broken/trivial and unmaintained packages that have a good name but even then it might be best to leave well enough alone).
I suppose you're talking about the original dispute which led the developer to unpublish his libraries (which npm stupidly allowed, and cargo didn't). There's a smaller chance of a company wanting a random package namespace then a package name but its not impossible (think Mike Rowe Soft vs Microsoft)