Criteria about awesome-javascript

[lesismal]

professional reviewers should be a must.

there are a large number of front-end community developers, many of whom lack engineering thinking, and they may give stars to other projects very casually, so I think the number of stars should not be a must.

[andreasonny83]

I love this definition. However, I would safely stay to thousands of stars as a requirement.

[fkirc]

I think that it would be nice to clearly specify whether something has to run "in a browser".
For example, I wrote the tool attranslate that runs in Node.js, but not in a browser: https://github.com/fkirc/attranslate

Of course, attranslate doesn't have enough stars because of its young age, but it is already included in more "topic-specific" awesome-lists like https://github.com/candelibas/awesome-ionic.

[gokaygurcan]

It shows -in one way or another- the popularity of a repository. If a repository has less than 10 stars (or even 100 or couple of hundreds) it's most likely not known by anyone, yet alone used. I'm sorry, but stars and watchers are the only metric we can track objectively.

On the other hand, if a repository is essentially an npm package and it the package's downloads are quite high, despite the fact that it has very few stars (i don't think there's such example out there but anyway), that might also be a good criteria.

[jolanipekun]

nicely done here, I like the interactions here.

[Allan2000-Git]

I would go with at least 90% JavaScript for a beginner and then slowly emerge with Typescript maybe