21–30 of 887 posts
My current programming project, my goal has been to do as much in-app as possible. Does that mean I'm more likely to have bugs in my own code? Yes. But I've learned a ton doing it, and I know that my code doesn't have a giant monster of bloat hidden behind some random dependency somewhere. And yeah, that means when I wanted to handle email, I learned a heck of a lot about how programs handle email. Did it take more t…
My current programming project, my goal has been to do as much in-app as possible. Does that mean I'm more likely to have bugs in my own code? Yes. But I've learned a ton doing it, and I know that my code doesn't have a giant monster of bloat hidden behind some random dependency somewhere. And yeah, that means when I wanted to handle email, I learned a heck of a lot about how programs handle email. Did it take more t…
I don't see anything wrong with using a pre-made left pad function. Why waste time and lines of code implementing something so trivial when there is already a solution available? However, I agree it is ridiculous to have a dedicated module for that one function. For most nontrivial projects I just include lodash, which contains tons and tons of handy utility functions that save time and provide efficient, fast implem…
Counter-argument: A good micro-module removes complexity. It has one simple purpose, is tested, and you can read the code yourself in less than 30 seconds to know what's happening. Take left-pad, for example. Super simple function, 1 minute to write, right? Yes. But check out this PR that fixes an edge case: https://github.com/azer/left-pad/pull/1 The fact of the matter is: every line of code I write myself is a comm…
Left padding is (almost in all languages) built-in, even C can do it with printf (edited)
The problem is not having a library that offers that, but having this micro-module thing as a whole NPM module. No other language does that.
If it was inside a string helpers, that's great.
But don't make me one single module for just left-padding (or is-integer-number)
This is just more evidence that the unit of code is a function, not a module. Eventually, given a pure enough language, every "package" could contain only a single function, and every function in a project could be published as an independently reusable unit.
Holy moly-- is-positive-integer/index.js: var passAll = require('101/pass-all') var isPositive = require('is-positive') var isInteger = require('is-integer') module.exports = passAll(isPositive, isInteger) I retract my previous statements that Javascript programmers are going down the same enterprise-y mess that Java programmers went down a decade ago. They've already taken it to an entirely different level of insani…
In languages with linkers, the better linkers would discard all unreachable functions. Then came DLLs. Use one function in a DLL/.so, and the whole thing has to be loaded. Go and Rust are usually statically linked, reflecting the fact that pulling in big DLLs was usually a lose. You rarely have two different programs on the same machine using the same DLLs, except for some standard low-level ones such as the C library.
Small modules are not evidence of a problem, and they certainly aren't evidence of an inability to implement these things on the part of the people depending on them. Why would I implement left-pad myself when there is already a well-tested implementation that I can install? Building up an ecosystem of tiny abstractions, bit by bit, iteratively and evolutionarily, is how we get robust, well-designed complex systems. We don't get there by everyone reinventing the left-pad function to sate some misplaced appetite for self-reliance.
The author seems to make some arbitrary distinction between things that are 'large enough' to be packaged and 'pure functions' which are 'too small' to be their own modules, and I just couldn't disagree more. Tiny, pure functions are ideal modules. They facilitate the greatest degree of re-use, most clearly articulate what they ought to be used for, and stateless things are, in general, more composable than stateful things. There is no better unit of re-use than a tiny, pure function.
Usually, dependency hell doesn't bite you, until it does. Try to rebuild that thousand-dependencies app in three years from now and you'll see ;-) I recently had to rebuild a large RoR app from circa 2011 and it took me longer to solve dependencies issues than to familiarise myself with the code base. Excessive dependencies are a huge anti-pattern and, in our respective developers communities, we should try to circul…
> Try to rebuild that thousand-dependencies app in three years from now and you'll see ;-) This is your fault for expecting free resources to remain free forever. If you care about build reproduction, dedicate resources to maintain a mirror for your dependencies. These are trivial to setup for any module system worth mentioning (and trivial to write if your module system is so new or esoteric that one wasn't already…
Counter-argument: A good micro-module removes complexity. It has one simple purpose, is tested, and you can read the code yourself in less than 30 seconds to know what's happening. Take left-pad, for example. Super simple function, 1 minute to write, right? Yes. But check out this PR that fixes an edge case: https://github.com/azer/left-pad/pull/1 The fact of the matter is: every line of code I write myself is a comm…
https://github.com/sindresorhus/ama/issues/10#issuecomment-1...