3 ms·

"echo" is not versioned and delivered on its own. It's part of gnu coreutils (which contains ~ 100 utilities), or part of various BSD core distributions (more t

by ploxiln 11y ago

"echo" is not versioned and delivered on its own. It's part of gnu coreutils (which contains ~ 100 utilities), or part of various BSD core distributions (more than 100 utilities, plus the kernel and libc), and also built-in to shells.

Klathmon 11y ago
IMO that doesn't change anything. The fact that in JS land it would be it's a standalone module means you get more choice in what you need (no need to pull down 100 programs if you only need 1 or 2).
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  You have the same amount of choice. There's no reason that you have to use the other hundred pieces of the package. In the Unix world, there's nothing precluding you from deciding to use the FreeBSD version of tar but keeping the rest of the GNU utilities there.
  - Klathmon 11y ago
    I guess it's a philosophical difference. But to be fair this would have the same outcome if left-pad were part of a library that included another 50+ libs (that he also wrote and published, and subsequently un-published today).
- ufmace 11y ago
  More choice, but now you need 50 different modules from 50 different authors to duplicate what would be in one good standard library, any of which could have bugs or be pulled out from under you for a multitude of reasons that are beyond your control. Choice can be a bad thing too - when there are 10 different modules for doing a moderately complex thing, you have to figure out which one is best for your project, and whether it's still actively maintained, bugs are fixed, how do they feel about making breaking changes, etc.
  - Klathmon 11y ago
    >now you need 50 different modules from 50 different authors Not necessarily, take a look at lodash and friends. There is nothing stopping bundling of tiny modules into big "libraries" to be used. As for the rest, you need to do that validation anyway. But if it were bundled in a large library there is MUCH more code that you need to review. with something like the module "left-pad", it's a no brainer to use the library. I know that it's under an EXTREMELY open license, the code is really small, and by vendoring your dependencies (you are vendoring your dependencies right?) this whole issue would have been a 5-10 minute fix that only needed to be done when you want to upgrade your dependencies next time.
  - Tyr42 11y ago
    But also, if you're shipping things to users browsers, please cut out all the stuff you don't use. I don't want to download 100 extra module's worth of JS code because it was bundled.

by ploxiln 11y ago

Klathmon 11y ago

IMO that doesn't change anything. The fact that in JS land it would be it's a standalone module means you get more choice in what you need (no need to pull down 100 programs if you only need 1 or 2).

Sanddancer 11y ago
You have the same amount of choice. There's no reason that you have to use the other hundred pieces of the package. In the Unix world, there's nothing precluding you from deciding to use the FreeBSD version of tar but keeping the rest of the GNU utilities there.
- Klathmon 11y ago
  I guess it's a philosophical difference. But to be fair this would have the same outcome if left-pad were part of a library that included another 50+ libs (that he also wrote and published, and subsequently un-published today).
ufmace 11y ago
More choice, but now you need 50 different modules from 50 different authors to duplicate what would be in one good standard library, any of which could have bugs or be pulled out from under you for a multitude of reasons that are beyond your control. Choice can be a bad thing too - when there are 10 different modules for doing a moderately complex thing, you have to figure out which one is best for your project, and whether it's still actively maintained, bugs are fixed, how do they feel about making breaking changes, etc.
- Klathmon 11y ago
  >now you need 50 different modules from 50 different authors Not necessarily, take a look at lodash and friends. There is nothing stopping bundling of tiny modules into big "libraries" to be used. As for the rest, you need to do that validation anyway. But if it were bundled in a large library there is MUCH more code that you need to review. with something like the module "left-pad", it's a no brainer to use the library. I know that it's under an EXTREMELY open license, the code is really small, and by vendoring your dependencies (you are vendoring your dependencies right?) this whole issue would have been a 5-10 minute fix that only needed to be done when you want to upgrade your dependencies next time.
- Tyr42 11y ago
  But also, if you're shipping things to users browsers, please cut out all the stuff you don't use. I don't want to download 100 extra module's worth of JS code because it was bundled.