3 ms·
Some blog linked from here (maybe jvns.ca?) made the case that depth of your project's software dependency tree is an important metric. The more crap you have
by throwaway81523 5y ago
Some blog linked from here (maybe jvns.ca?) made the case that depth of your project's software dependency tree is an important metric. The more crap you have to pull in, the more things can go wrong. You're better off with a large program with no dependencies, than a somewhat smaller program with a ton of dependencies.
Language features on the other hand can let you develop complex programs quickly and reliably, by catching errors before the code gets deployed and so on.
- juancb 5y agoWhat about the depth of dependencies of any part of the standard libraries for a given language?
- throwaway81523 5y agoI think that doesn't count, as long as the install is in one piece. That's how Python got its popularity. Its "batteries included" approach meant you got lots of stuff in the stdlib instead of having to chase it all over the interweb. Unfortunately they seemed to have abandoned that approach in more recent times.
- closeparen 5y agoPython has a lot of batteries included, but nearly everyone finds it necessary to bring in “requests.” And then once you have one pip package, what’s a few more?
- throwaway81523 5y agoI use urllib instead of requests just to get rid of a dependency. It does all the same stuff with slightly uglier calls. More to the point, Python Central seems to now favor shovelling off stuff to external dependencies.
- preseinger 5y agoIsn't the standard library definitionally depth=1?