21–30 of 132 posts
Is there a minimal replacement for log4j?
Most of what log4j does is stuff that arguably should be done outside of the application, such as log rotation and piping to file and what have you.
I don't think there's an issue with depending on libraries that are big. If the library is just a big bag of classes from which you cherry-pick the ones you need, then the extrapolation on the number of bugs as mentioned in the article under "By the numbers" is meaningless. Why care about bugs in code you don't use if it doesn't even end up getting linked into your program? In modern languages like Go or Rust, it wil…
Dependencies where I know the domain are borrowed time (sometimes with bombs attached) with mild virtue.
If hell is other people, debugging other people’s code is double-dog hell. Triple-dog hell if they’re unresponsive or in a significantly different time zone.
The truth is that the world generally doesn't give a shit about software quality. Developers are expensive and business models shoddy. You have to be quick, otherwise the competition makes the race. I for my part have given up and go with the flow. Who cares if Hibernate creates a million queries in the background. Hey, it works, so ship it!
while you're at it, don't forget to cull significantly your SDK too. ...
This says so much about what is wrong with modern software development. It definitely wasn't the sentiment I studied and progressed through my career with over the last 30 years.
> An interesting thing about developers is that we are lazy, and prefe to write as few lines of code as possible This says so much about what is wrong with modern software development. It definitely wasn't the sentiment I studied and progressed through my career with over the last 30 years.
Nothing wrong with being lazy if it gets things done, right?
Dependencies can be very good, they can provide enormous leverage to actually solve your problems and share the burden of common problems like parsing a json string or compressing to gzip or whatever. In theory at least.
On the other hand, I think a large part of the problem actually comes from dependency managers being a bit too good. It's easy to pull some library and not realize the dependency has massive root system of transitive dependencies, and once that gets settled in your code base it may be difficult to get out.
I think the real problem isn't dependencies themselves, but when dependencies are expected to have dependencies in themselves. I don't think what you get in the end is good, robust software. It gets a sort of flimsy quality where stuff keeps breaking and falling apart and that's just the way it is.
> An interesting thing about developers is that we are lazy, and prefe to write as few lines of code as possible This says so much about what is wrong with modern software development. It definitely wasn't the sentiment I studied and progressed through my career with over the last 30 years.
I've worked with plenty of devs who wore extreme verbosity almost as a badge of honour.