4 ms·

At work recently we reinvented something that already existed - but I think we had a good reason to. There's a node package called "request" [1] that's a very,

by azylman 14y ago

At work recently we reinvented something that already existed - but I think we had a good reason to. There's a node package called "request" [1] that's a very, very popular third-party library to simplify HTTP requests. If you look at the code, though, it's really, really nasty - the whole thing is filled with global state. After I spent 6 hours in one day debugging issues in the library and filing bugs (some of which included things such as "if you try to set a querystring parameter, request can no longer follow redirects"), we decided that enough was enough and we rewrote it from scratch [2]. I think that rewriting it took us about as much time as we spent debugging it, but we were left with a project that's a drop-in replacement (as long as you're not using any of the advanced features) and has a codebase that's 1/10th (!!!) as many lines of code while implementing near 80% of its features. [1] https://github.com/mikeal/request https://github.com/mikeal/request [2] https://github.com/clever/quest https://github.com/clever/quest

aaronbrethorst 14y ago
Perhaps the other 9/10ths of the code implement the other 20% of the features?* * Half joking.
- azylman 14y ago
  I think roughly 40% of the remaining code implements the last 20% of the features, and the other 50% is just random bloat. Request has a lot of extra code to deal with the global state. It's written as one giant class that sets all of its properties on itself (e.g. this.method = options.method, etc., etc., followed by "http.request this"). Further, when it handles HTTP redirects, rather than instantiate a new instance of itself or something it just calls its init method a second time and has to make sure that it resets all of its properties to their default state (e.g. this.method = 'GET'). This is where most of the bugs come in, as well as most of the bloat. In contrast, our's is a method that calls itself again with new options based on the context when it needs to handle HTTP redirects so we don't need to worry about that sort of stuff.
rlpb 14y ago
I don't think NIH counts as NIH when you have a very clear and justifiable rationale. The best projects document their rationale and provide a direct, unbiased comparison to allow developers to make a better decision on which to use, as you have. The worst (and true NIH) projects pretend that the original project does not exist or document a biased comparison without acknowledging the points that are subjective. There is one improvement I'd make. Your story here (spent hours debugging and filing bugs; spending the same amount of time rewriting got you further) is the most convincing reason to me. I'd document this in your comparison!
- mdpye 14y ago
  Exactly; NIH syndrome refers to the fact that it wasn't invented in house /being/ (or tainting) the rational. Edit: replace failed attempt at italics...
  - saurik 14y ago
    I doubt that many people say with a straight face "I rebuilt it because I didn't write the original", even if that's the real reason: there is always an excuse.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by azylman 14y ago

aaronbrethorst 14y ago

Perhaps the other 9/10ths of the code implement the other 20% of the features?* * Half joking.

azylman 14y ago
I think roughly 40% of the remaining code implements the last 20% of the features, and the other 50% is just random bloat. Request has a lot of extra code to deal with the global state. It's written as one giant class that sets all of its properties on itself (e.g. this.method = options.method, etc., etc., followed by "http.request this"). Further, when it handles HTTP redirects, rather than instantiate a new instance of itself or something it just calls its init method a second time and has to make sure that it resets all of its properties to their default state (e.g. this.method = 'GET'). This is where most of the bugs come in, as well as most of the bloat. In contrast, our's is a method that calls itself again with new options based on the context when it needs to handle HTTP redirects so we don't need to worry about that sort of stuff.

rlpb 14y ago

I don't think NIH counts as NIH when you have a very clear and justifiable rationale. The best projects document their rationale and provide a direct, unbiased comparison to allow developers to make a better decision on which to use, as you have. The worst (and true NIH) projects pretend that the original project does not exist or document a biased comparison without acknowledging the points that are subjective. There is one improvement I'd make. Your story here (spent hours debugging and filing bugs; spending the same amount of time rewriting got you further) is the most convincing reason to me. I'd document this in your comparison!

mdpye 14y ago
Exactly; NIH syndrome refers to the fact that it wasn't invented in house /being/ (or tainting) the rational. Edit: replace failed attempt at italics...
- saurik 14y ago
  I doubt that many people say with a straight face "I rebuilt it because I didn't write the original", even if that's the real reason: there is always an excuse.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]