4 ms·

> But isn't using the code that people smarter/more proficient than you have developed a rather good way to go about things? One big task about programming is

by chme 6y ago

> But isn't using the code that people smarter/more proficient than you have developed a rather good way to go about things? One big task about programming is handling dependencies and thinking about assumptions. Before even beginning to write any code, you have to think about these things: - What environment do I expect the end user uses? Are there already some libraries I can use as well installed? - Do I need a GUI, or should it also run on headless devices? TUI or just CLI? - Does it make sense to use a big comprehensive framework or rather a bundle of minimal components? - Does a specific feature really need an additional dependency or can I rather implement something on top of the already existing dependencies? - How good is the maintenance of a library, code quality and is the license compatible? - and many more... All of those are very difficult questions and require often some crystal balls to get right. Lazy people might just add any dependency some stackoverflow or other random search result says, without thinking about these. While good developers think about each one and try to find a minimal set of them.

KronisLV 6y ago
That's a fair argument to make, however i'm not sure that i'm able to entirely agree to this. > While good developers think about each one and try to find a minimal set of them. (tl;dr at the bottom, things up to "In short, " are merely my experience, which is entirely subjective) For example, suppose that i'm working on a Java project and i want to do some non-trivial operations with the filesystem. In this instance, my options for implementing the functionality would be as follows: 1. Attempt to do it myself by using the standard library 2. Attempt to find a really specific library that allows me to do what i need 3. Attempt to use one of the larger libraries out there, that provide a variety of related functionality, which may or may not be useful Each of them definitely should be evaluated, but for the most part, i've found the following to be true about these approaches: 1. Attempt to do it myself by using the standard library + Will be easily customizable, because no source/recompilation will be necessary for an external library (though mostly a problem of the toolchain and approaches to including libraries). + Will result in a small distribution size, since there won't be redundant code included. - The code mostly won't have good test coverage, since i cannot spare the time because of business/bosses needig functionality ASAP. Neither will i be able to address the technical debt that might arise from this solution, or throw out a sub-optimal solution and rewrite it until i get it right. Ideally this wouldn't be a problem, but i'm afraid that this is usually the case. - The documentation will be sub-par, since code itself doesn't provide many mechanisms for showing examples on how to use it (as opposed to a Wiki/sandbox), even in the case of "self-documenting code", non-trivial concepts will still require code comments, which will also need to be kept up to date by someone who'll need to edit the code. Onboarding will be more difficult, because initially noone will be familiar with the solution. - Time spent creating bespoke solutions will prevent me from implementing other solutions and addressing other concerns with the limited time i have. In addition, bugs could arise, since i'd miss certain aspects that people who are more proficient in working with IO would notice and address. 2. Attempt to find a really specific library that allows me to do what i need + Will result in a small distribution size, since there won't be too much redundant code included. - More often than not, minimal dependencies can result in many of the above problems (especially problematic with documentation, since i wouldn't even have had written the code in the first place). - In addition, minimalistic solutions often have relatively few contributors, which can result in them becoming abandoned some time down the road. Maybe not too important for small libraries that can be rewritten, but eventually you'll end up with unmaintained dependencies which will need addressing. 3. Attempt to use one of the larger libraries out there, that provide a variety of related functionality, which may or may not be useful + Will usually be actively maintained (for example, https://github.com/apache/commons-io has 70 contributors and 360k users). + Will usually also have reasonable test coverage (the library above has 89%, according to GitHub) + Will usually have a rather good documentation that's updated by others (sometimes in the form of a separate website, like https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-io/) + Can easily be Googled with plenty of common problems (some of which are almost inevitable) addressed. This will also help others, who need to work with said code. + Maintenance and technical debt won't need to be addressed in house. Oftentimes it'll be as easy as bumping up the version number and running the tests surrounding the integration (if any exist). - Will probably include lots of bloat, which may or may not have a significant impact on the bundle size of your project. - Will most likely increase the attack surface of your project in some way. - Will also be difficult to audit and really get to know in entirety (if not impossible). In short, i don't think that how "minimal" dependencies are should be the deciding factor when choosing them, but rather the results of deliberation of the points that you've described above. In my experience, i've found that more often than not, counting on existing and popular frameworks/libraries/approaches is the best way to go. Though this is from the perspective of someone creating mostly business oriented solutions for external clients, thus i'm biased because of time/resource limitations and such. There was actually a rather humorous presentation a while back and while the best video i can find of it is still in pretty bad quality: https://youtu.be/AUYPnxv0yss https://youtu.be/AUYPnxv0yss (couldn't find the exact timestamp) one of the things that stuck to me was the suggestion that you should use whatever language/tool/framework that your friends/colleagues use, if possible. Essentially - use boring technology, that will be easy to reason about and that will help you more often than not.
- chme 6y ago
  All of those are very good points! > In short, i don't think that how "minimal" dependencies are should be the deciding factor when choosing them, but rather the results of deliberation of the points that you've described above. Well I said 'minimal set of dependencies' not 'minimal dependencies'. My text wasn't meant to make a point for small libraries or for implementing everything inside the project, but just to point out the important factor of dependency management as part of programming, which I felt was missing in this discussion. Of course if there is some big framework that is well maintained, possible already used by other software components that might be already available on the device of the end user, fulfills all business/project requirements and you might end up using it for more the just one function, then great! That also means you might not add many other random small dependencies to dependency set, now or in the future and that set might stay minimal. But if there is something that is not part of the big framework, and easy to get wrong, then of course you should add some dependency that does it for you under all these deliberations instead of trying, and possible failing, to do it yourself. You should however step back from this and reconsider, if you start adding libraries for just string padding and the like.
- kortex 6y ago
  Wow, I felt that talk in my bones. It reminds me of the languages I cut my teeth on: visual basic and hypercard. You just get to make stuff and it is liberating. TFA is a classic x-y problem. Author says they want node in the browser. What they really want is something they can quickly be productive in, a one stop shop. Author is describing an IDE.
- stonemetal12 6y ago
  Your evaluation criteria left out "does new dependency conflict with any other dependency in the system". In which case a minimal set of dependencies is attractive because it reduces likely hood of conflicts and reduces effort to determine conflicts with dependencies added in the future.

by chme 6y ago

KronisLV 6y ago

That's a fair argument to make, however i'm not sure that i'm able to entirely agree to this. > While good developers think about each one and try to find a minimal set of them. (tl;dr at the bottom, things up to "In short, " are merely my experience, which is entirely subjective) For example, suppose that i'm working on a Java project and i want to do some non-trivial operations with the filesystem. In this instance, my options for implementing the functionality would be as follows: 1. Attempt to do it myself by using the standard library 2. Attempt to find a really specific library that allows me to do what i need 3. Attempt to use one of the larger libraries out there, that provide a variety of related functionality, which may or may not be useful Each of them definitely should be evaluated, but for the most part, i've found the following to be true about these approaches: 1. Attempt to do it myself by using the standard library + Will be easily customizable, because no source/recompilation will be necessary for an external library (though mostly a problem of the toolchain and approaches to including libraries). + Will result in a small distribution size, since there won't be redundant code included. - The code mostly won't have good test coverage, since i cannot spare the time because of business/bosses needig functionality ASAP. Neither will i be able to address the technical debt that might arise from this solution, or throw out a sub-optimal solution and rewrite it until i get it right. Ideally this wouldn't be a problem, but i'm afraid that this is usually the case. - The documentation will be sub-par, since code itself doesn't provide many mechanisms for showing examples on how to use it (as opposed to a Wiki/sandbox), even in the case of "self-documenting code", non-trivial concepts will still require code comments, which will also need to be kept up to date by someone who'll need to edit the code. Onboarding will be more difficult, because initially noone will be familiar with the solution. - Time spent creating bespoke solutions will prevent me from implementing other solutions and addressing other concerns with the limited time i have. In addition, bugs could arise, since i'd miss certain aspects that people who are more proficient in working with IO would notice and address. 2. Attempt to find a really specific library that allows me to do what i need + Will result in a small distribution size, since there won't be too much redundant code included. - More often than not, minimal dependencies can result in many of the above problems (especially problematic with documentation, since i wouldn't even have had written the code in the first place). - In addition, minimalistic solutions often have relatively few contributors, which can result in them becoming abandoned some time down the road. Maybe not too important for small libraries that can be rewritten, but eventually you'll end up with unmaintained dependencies which will need addressing. 3. Attempt to use one of the larger libraries out there, that provide a variety of related functionality, which may or may not be useful + Will usually be actively maintained (for example, https://github.com/apache/commons-io has 70 contributors and 360k users). + Will usually also have reasonable test coverage (the library above has 89%, according to GitHub) + Will usually have a rather good documentation that's updated by others (sometimes in the form of a separate website, like https://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-io/) + Can easily be Googled with plenty of common problems (some of which are almost inevitable) addressed. This will also help others, who need to work with said code. + Maintenance and technical debt won't need to be addressed in house. Oftentimes it'll be as easy as bumping up the version number and running the tests surrounding the integration (if any exist). - Will probably include lots of bloat, which may or may not have a significant impact on the bundle size of your project. - Will most likely increase the attack surface of your project in some way. - Will also be difficult to audit and really get to know in entirety (if not impossible). In short, i don't think that how "minimal" dependencies are should be the deciding factor when choosing them, but rather the results of deliberation of the points that you've described above. In my experience, i've found that more often than not, counting on existing and popular frameworks/libraries/approaches is the best way to go. Though this is from the perspective of someone creating mostly business oriented solutions for external clients, thus i'm biased because of time/resource limitations and such. There was actually a rather humorous presentation a while back and while the best video i can find of it is still in pretty bad quality: https://youtu.be/AUYPnxv0yss https://youtu.be/AUYPnxv0yss (couldn't find the exact timestamp) one of the things that stuck to me was the suggestion that you should use whatever language/tool/framework that your friends/colleagues use, if possible. Essentially - use boring technology, that will be easy to reason about and that will help you more often than not.

chme 6y ago
All of those are very good points! > In short, i don't think that how "minimal" dependencies are should be the deciding factor when choosing them, but rather the results of deliberation of the points that you've described above. Well I said 'minimal set of dependencies' not 'minimal dependencies'. My text wasn't meant to make a point for small libraries or for implementing everything inside the project, but just to point out the important factor of dependency management as part of programming, which I felt was missing in this discussion. Of course if there is some big framework that is well maintained, possible already used by other software components that might be already available on the device of the end user, fulfills all business/project requirements and you might end up using it for more the just one function, then great! That also means you might not add many other random small dependencies to dependency set, now or in the future and that set might stay minimal. But if there is something that is not part of the big framework, and easy to get wrong, then of course you should add some dependency that does it for you under all these deliberations instead of trying, and possible failing, to do it yourself. You should however step back from this and reconsider, if you start adding libraries for just string padding and the like.
kortex 6y ago
Wow, I felt that talk in my bones. It reminds me of the languages I cut my teeth on: visual basic and hypercard. You just get to make stuff and it is liberating. TFA is a classic x-y problem. Author says they want node in the browser. What they really want is something they can quickly be productive in, a one stop shop. Author is describing an IDE.
stonemetal12 6y ago
Your evaluation criteria left out "does new dependency conflict with any other dependency in the system". In which case a minimal set of dependencies is attractive because it reduces likely hood of conflicts and reduces effort to determine conflicts with dependencies added in the future.