4 ms·
Once you detach from "I must use a library for every thing" land, you begin to realize you don't need the overwhelming majority of them. Which results in writin
by dimitrios1 5y ago
Once you detach from "I must use a library for every thing" land, you begin to realize you don't need the overwhelming majority of them. Which results in writing cleaner, simpler, more focused code, with less of a surface area for bugs. It's a whole mindset, tbh.
- ModernMech 5y agoI appreciate libraries for: - ubiquitous things, like data structures - hard to get right things, like time - implementations of specs, like Unicode - hardware interfaces, like CUDA For everything else, I'll take the above and roll my own solution.
- dimitrios1 5y agoexcept for the last one, all of those should be part of the language you are using, and well thought out + researched. I guess I should have been more specific: third party dependencies.
- scotttrinh 5y agoIn this specific case (Elm vs. JavaScript) We're talking about JavaScript here, so: > - ubiquitous things, like data structures There are a few basic data structures in JS, but almost everything else is in user-land. > - hard to get right things, like time Date is a notoriously bad API in JavaScript. - implementations of specs, like Unicode We just get a String type in JavaScript which is UTF-16, so...
- dimitrios1 5y ago> We're talking about JavaScript here, so: Well, no, we aren't. We are talking about the Elm language, which compiles to JavaScript. There are also other excellent languages that target JavaScript that have these things.
- alephu5 5y agoWhat about something tedious and ubiquitous, such as swapping between camel and snake case?
- PhineasRex 5y agoThis is exactly the case where you don't need a library. This is a single function (or two) and you can easily translate an existing code example into the language you're using in a few minutes and be done with it.