3 ms·

I agree but the supposing part seems a bigger problem... log4j is not small or simple or understandable and this is easy to discover if you glance at it, I thin

• christophilus 5y ago
  This is the root issue. There are so many libraries that do way more than they should. I get it, too. It’s really hard to say no over and over and over. It gets tiring, but it’s the only way to rein in these kinds of things.
• foxfluff 5y ago
  And if you advocate for avoiding complex deps, you'll get hordes of people defending them. Someone needs all these features, they are there for a reason! The authors of the library must be experts on the subject matter and anything you'd write yourself would inevitably suck. Why reinvent the wheel badly. Why make what you can take. Etcetra. It's quite depressing.
  • vbezhenar 5y ago
    The question is not about presence of complex tools. The question is about lack of very simple tools. I'm the person who likes simple tools. I need just a little bit more than simple System.out.println from logging. But I'm expected to use commonly accepted libraries and frameworks, nobody will be excited if I'd replace logback with my 200-lines "library". And every commonly used library in Java is complex and feature-ridden. Sometimes I wish I had more time to rewrite all Java stack, from logging to http server with dumb simple inefficient but understandable code. May be I should just move to Go. It seems to better reflect that approach. But I like Java language...