4 ms·

This statement is a bit confusing: are you saying that there is such a thing as too much code reuse? That it should be necessarily a bit difficult to integrate

• skohan 6y ago
  There's always a balance point. For something like JSON parsing, or an HTTP client, for sure I want to use a library. But when code reuse means pulling in a giant library to do one specific thing, or else introducing a runtime like tokio where it otherwise might not be needed, I would probably rather implement a small tailored solution specifically for my use-case.
  • Measter 6y ago
    In one sense, the way that larger crates in Rust are fragmented does address some of that. This does result in large dependency trees, but it does also mean that if you need that one specific functionality, you may not need to pull in the full library, but only that smaller section.
  • mypalmike 6y ago
    Ideally, there should be no harm in pulling in a library for just 1% of its functionally. A combination of careful library design and tooling should take care of dependency bloat ("shaking the tree"). In practice of course, libraries don't always consider this aspect, and the tooling never seems quite up to the task.
    • skohan 6y ago
      Yeah I think it’s also a matter of API design. Like a crate which by necessity has to handle the “general case” to some degree will often have more API complexity than a solution which is tailored to one specific use-case. For instance, you might have to concern yourself with configuration parameters which have zero relevance to your use-case.