3 ms·
I think the article subtley misinterprets the whole idea of it and the problem of it. It's fine to invent your own wheel. But that doesn't mean you should put
by zmmmmm 1y ago
I think the article subtley misinterprets the whole idea of it and the problem of it.
It's fine to invent your own wheel. But that doesn't mean you should put it in production or feel any entitlement for anybody else to use it there, just because you put personal effort into it. It's going to need to be at least as good, if not better, not just in whatever novel genius way you made it unique, but in all the boring ways - testing, documentation, supportability, etc.
- jonahx 1y agoThis is a good point, but there is a countervailing one: Sometimes the already invented, tested, and documented "standard" thing is much bigger than what you need. Perhaps you need one feature out of ten. It can make sense to re-invent the wheel to make exactly what you need, and nothing more, even at the expenses you've mentioned. Not always -- you need to weigh all the factors for your own situation -- but choosing "re-invention" is not necessarily a merely-indulgent exercise of ego.
- augusto-moura 1y agoSometimes the size doesn't really matter, maybe if you are working on a constrained space (embedded software, let's say). But if you are doing Web or using any modern language, unused code is usually optimized out of the compiled bundle and you don't care about it. We care much more about tested and battle proven behavior
- jonahx 1y agoI am talking about size of cognitive load, complexity, attack surface area, etc.