2 ms·

Well, the option is to rewrite the entire stack yourself. So sure, let me spend a lifetime doing that instead of things I'd like to be doing. I already opt for

by bmitc 4y ago

Well, the option is to rewrite the entire stack yourself. So sure, let me spend a lifetime doing that instead of things I'd like to be doing. I already opt for minimal dependencies. The problem is that every piece of software I have ever interacted with has had bugs that immediately surface, and nearly universally, there's only a handful of people that can fix them. I can't possibly be expected to reimplement or even fix projects that have taken decades to develop. You say don't lock yourself into dependencies. Well, to create a window on an OS, you have no choice but to have a dependency, because that's how the real world works. The only option is to write your own OS, but even that has dependencies.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
That's what I typically do. I'll make sure that the libraries I rely on are either ridiculously well proven, or easily replaceable. If they are neither of those things I implement a new one myself from stuff that is, while no doubt just as buggy, it's at least code I can easily fix myself if it breaks. Usually it's not that much work. I'll just implement what I actually need. Many open source projects are hilariously over-designed and have significant feature creep. If you cut that out you can replace the critical components with not a lot of code and not a lot of hassle. If it can't be trivially re-implemented, I've been known to fork an existing project and take a grinder to it until it does what I want, usually axing away most of what I don't need to only expose the code I need.