3 ms·
Here are my underlying assumptions: - Some set of libraries are fully audited. - Some libraries can't be fully specced and audited because their specs are in
by Ygg2 3y ago
Here are my underlying assumptions:
- Some set of libraries are fully audited.
- Some libraries can't be fully specced and audited because their specs are in flux (e.g. games, GUIs, webapps)
- Those libraries/apps will limit their maintenance burden by using audited ones
- Package managers are useful.
As long as the set of audited libraries is large or tends to grow large, or the audited libraries build upon each other, or the non-audited libraries depend on many other libraries, the "deeply nested" (I don't think it's deeply nested as much as many dependencies) hierarchy will be replicated.
- whstl 3y agoNaturally I'm fine with people using even single-function libraries if they're audited, but the problem is that those are the ones who historically are not cared for that much :/ All those assumptions can be all true, but that still doesn't make the overarching assumption right. I would also appreciate if you took a look at my messages with a bit more empathy. I state several times that I'm not advocating for the opposite "NIH syndrome" point of view... this has been implied by you and by the other poster several times, and it's not cool :/