3 ms·
No. What programmers want are solutions to problems. Nobody is asking for the madness of having proper-sized packages split into 100 smaller packages with zero
by ratww 5y ago
No. What programmers want are solutions to problems.
Nobody is asking for the madness of having proper-sized packages split into 100 smaller packages with zero advantages and actually a few disadvantages (difficult to audit, impossible to fork). This is what is being criticised here.
It would be perfectly fine to have a single `terminal-utils` package that contained all of this. And no, handlebar-helpers doesn't count.
> I see this general trend as a symptom of the inadequacy of JS to out-of-the-box address the tasks it's used for, which (as we note here) opens an outlet for spamming and security liabilities.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Package authors should not spam, regardless of the issues with of the ecosystem or language.
- xg15 5y agoI get the ridiculousness of those tiny packages. On the other hand I also hate to have my codebase bloated by some kitchen-sink "util" package of which I'll use about 0.1% functionality. (while, if I were really strict, I'd also have to audit and track the remaining 99.9% of the code.) Tree-shaking can help at least keeping the build artefact small, but it doesn't help with the codebase during development. Of course there is still a difference between fine-grained dependencies and things that shouldn't be dependencies in the first place.
- ratww 5y agoThere is a sane middle ground between tiny and bloated, though. I don't see how using a false dichotomy justifies the issues we're complaining about. Especially when most of those packages are almost never used by themselves, and are instead part of a meta-package with dozens of dependencies.