3 ms·
> However, the moment you dip into libraries you are dependent on someone else's work. Like every other programming language? > Then you run into a problem be
by rounce 8y ago
> However, the moment you dip into libraries you are dependent on someone else's work.
Like every other programming language?
> Then you run into a problem because Native doesnt let you use a specific library
You are confusing runtime and language.
- dave84 8y ago>> However, the moment you dip into libraries you are dependent on someone else's work. >Like every other programming language? The lack of a standard library means you'll be dipping in a lot sooner.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- maemilius 8y agoI don't really get this. How is any language's stdlib _not_ someone else's work? The language itself is "someone else's work". The only difference, in my mind, between a "standard library" and a "third-party library" is the level of trust. If a third-party library is widely used by a community and known to be built by trustworthy people, I don't see how it's functionally different from a "standard" library. EDIT: To clarify, I'm only trying to make a general statement about libraries, not the trustworthiness of any particular language's library landscape.
- pmarreck 8y ago> Like every other programming language? There are languages which do a much better job of reducing or eliminating possible "blast radius" of a bug in a dependent library. Functional/immutable languages such as Elixir come to mind (for example, you can literally reduce the scope of a library to an individual function). This is not one of those languages.