4 ms·
It's interesting to me that people find this convincing. I find it to be complete insanity. People need their libraries, but putting everything in tiny buckets
by ctolsen 11y ago
It's interesting to me that people find this convincing. I find it to be complete insanity. People need their libraries, but putting everything in tiny buckets is just not working. Why aren't people working on good utility libraries instead?
There's even some guy calling for a "micro-lodash". To me, as a Python engineer, lodash [1] is already a tiny utility library.
I guess it's also about the fact that JS is a pretty bad language. That you need a one-line `isArray` dependency to `toString.call(arr) == '[object Array]'` is crazy.
[1] https://lodash.com/docs https://lodash.com/docs
- dysfunction 11y agoThere is a practical reason for tiny modules in client-side JS that doesn't exist with Python: page load times. If your base layer is going to have third-party dependencies, they better be tiny and do only and exactly what you need. That said, lodash core is only 4KB, and lodash gives you the ability to build it with only the categories or exact functions you want, so I don't understand what the purpose of a "micro-lodash" would be.
- ctolsen 11y agoThere are tools to include only the stuff you actually use that you can stuff in your build process though.