3 ms·
I understand what you're saying, but that's actually in support of my point. This is still extremely trivial code to implement and, from what I can tell, doesn
by ravenstine 3y ago
I understand what you're saying, but that's actually in support of my point. This is still extremely trivial code to implement and, from what I can tell, doesn't warrant downloading an NPM package. Have we already forgotten the left-pad fiasco?
This isn't meant as a personal attack on anyone, but we really need to frown upon needless dependencies, especially given the growing number of malicious NPM packages.
- mofle 3y agoNo one is forcing you to use it. You can choose to reimplement the code yourself or you can choose to copy-paste the code. I made the package for my own convenience as I need to transition a lot of packages from `Buffer` and I don't want to maintain duplicates of the code in every package. Others are free to use the package or not.
- ravenstine 3y agoHey, that's totally fine if that's what you want to do, especially if it's for your own convenience. What I'm trying to communicate really has nothing to do with whether anyone is being forced to install anything. My point is that there easily avoidable problems that are inherent to pulling in packages hosted elsewhere, and that programmers should consider whether they should avoid suggesting that using a third-party package for something that can be written by hand in a few minutes. That's all I'm saying. For your own use, this makes a lot of sense. If it were me, I would avoid sharing it, and I hope more programmers move away from relying heavily on other people's packages for tiny units of functionality. But I probably wouldn't have been vocal about that here if I knew your intent with that package (or that you even wrote it, which perhaps I missed somewhere).
- lexicality 3y agoYou're talking to someone who has published well over a thousand packages, many of them tiny. I suspect your philosophies are irreconcilable.