3 ms·
>overload existing code with additional functions when feasible, rather than starting a new project from scratch. why? are you making a jab at small packages?
by tonto 4y ago
>overload existing code with additional functions when feasible, rather than starting a new project from scratch.
why? are you making a jab at small packages? ill just rant on that and say i think small packages are great. they are extremely purpose built and lovely to use. they do become transitive dependencies often leading to the "issue" in this blogpost but im in the yolo upgrade camp
- avidphantasm 4y agoThe churn required to keep up with frequent updates to many dependencies can work for some projects, but I would argue only for projects with continuous funding. If a project is only funded every couple of years and has many dependencies, odds are, the next time it is funded, there will be an inordinate amount of work to patch/update the code. For such projects, fewer or no dependencies may be better.
- tonto 4y agothis one hits home for me because I do work in academia where funding goes kaput frequently and I do have to agree on some level. Some of the most stable and popular tools in my field have few to zero dependencies and are written in c... bioinformaticians will know what I mean.