I'm not sure you followed the above 2 points, or perhaps read them through tinted glasses.
I wasn't arguing that npm's namespacing system is worse than their initial system, nor that their switch to namespacing was a mistake.
The current npm namespaced system, with flaws, is head-and-shoulders better than the previous flat system.
You're saying you did "look and learn". If by that you mean you looked at the end product (npm's is seriously flawed) without looking at the journey to that product (npm's is still a huge improvement over what they started with), then you're not going to learn much from that kind of "looking".
I highlighted Composer/Packagist in a sibling comment as a system you should look and learn from (w.r.t. namespaces).
Choosing to only look at flawed systems that started flat seems like you're just being selective to support your own thesis.
I wasn't arguing that npm's namespacing system is worse than their initial system, nor that their switch to namespacing was a mistake.
The current npm namespaced system, with flaws, is head-and-shoulders better than the previous flat system.
You're saying you did "look and learn". If by that you mean you looked at the end product (npm's is seriously flawed) without looking at the journey to that product (npm's is still a huge improvement over what they started with), then you're not going to learn much from that kind of "looking".
I highlighted Composer/Packagist in a sibling comment as a system you should look and learn from (w.r.t. namespaces).
Choosing to only look at flawed systems that started flat seems like you're just being selective to support your own thesis.