6 ms·
I don't quite understand what you are saying. As per the article, the advantage of a library over a service is that you don't have the burden of maintaining th
by gjadi 3y ago
I don't quite understand what you are saying.
As per the article, the advantage of a library over a service is that you don't have the burden of maintaining the said service. How having a thin client and a server helps?
I also don't see how "shoving new options in the dict" can help. From my POV, if the client needs to be updated to benefit from the new features, then there is no way around it, work has to be done. From there, I much prefer having sensible name, parameters, etc. from a library that can be leveraged by static typing rather than a documentation for a JSON API (I know API-as-specs exist but I've never used, maybe that's why I think that).
- chii 3y ago> From my POV, if the client needs to be updated to benefit from the new features, then there is no way around it, work has to be done. But the point is they don't have to update even if there's changes. They can update at their leisure.
- gjadi 3y agoSame as not linking with the new lib? I understand it may be different if the software is distributed through the package manager of linux distribution because you have to follow what's provided by the distribution. But for a commercial software you can probably bundle your own libraries in executable or compile it statically. But I am not familiar with the difficulties of the above process so I am probably missing something.