6 ms·

Most of the time I can do it better because my problem space is so much smaller. And sometimes I look at components and I'm so disgusted by the code or the API

Most of the time I can do it better because my problem space is so much smaller. And sometimes I look at components and I'm so disgusted by the code or the API that I merely use it as an example and re-write the code for my own purposes. Just because somebody put it on Github or built a package doesn't automatically make the code good. Most of the "not invented here" I come across is from developers who never look for 3rd party solutions. It doesn't even occur to them. And it's usually obvious stuff like XML or JSON parsing! Which is why the message of "Not Invented here" is a good one to repeat over and over.

kybernetikos 12y ago
> Which is why the message of "Not Invented here" is a good one to repeat over and over. So, there is a problem where many developers would rather work on abstractions rather than concrete value-providing things. I suffer from this myself - if abstractions weren't interesting to us, we wouldn't be working in software. However, over the years I've discovered that many software projects are gaining negative value from some of their libraries, and I'm not sure which is the larger problem. http://yosefk.com/blog/redundancy-vs-dependencies-which-is-worse.html http://yosefk.com/blog/redundancy-vs-dependencies-which-is-w... describes the essential problem.
- jcoffland 12y ago
  So true. You always have to weight the cost of carrying around a dependency and what that will mean for others who will have to use and build your code in the future and on platforms like Windows where dependency resolution is far from trivial. Seen this way sometimes it's worth spending a few of hours writing a JSON parser to avoid adding a dependency. Probably not woth an XML parser though.
xamuel 12y ago
>obvious stuff like XML or JSON parsing! There is one case when those wheels can be worth (partially) reinventing: if you only need them to parse some files which use XML or JSON in a very restricted way. Say you've got a bunch of XML files which only go one level deep, only use ASCII, don't use namespaces, etc. A full XML parser comes with a whole ton of bloat you don't need for that! Plus, if there's ever a problem with those files, the outsourced XML parser will tend to give the end-user absolutely useless error messages.
- yo-code-sucks 12y ago
  Nope nope nope. Your not a special flower, you cannot do it better, at least not on my dime.
  - xamuel 12y ago
    Did you even read what I wrote? Of course I can't do a better XML or JSON parser. But if what you need parsed is ten thousand lines of <key1>value1</key1> then I'm pretty sure I can write something a lot more efficient and portable, with better error reporting, than W3CBBQ, and I can do it in 10 minutes. That said, I'm very flattered you created a throwaway account just to respond to me.
    - MaulingMonkey 12y ago
      > then I'm pretty sure I can write something a lot more efficient Sure. > and portable ...it's hard to be "a lot more portable" than a simple C library that compiles out of the box on all your preferred compilers and platforms. Care to elaborate how you end up being "a lot more portable"? > with better error reporting Plenty of room to do your own error reporting with off the shelf parsers. > and I can do it in 10 minutes The bug reports, on the other hand, will last a lifetime. Because that format will change, your underlying assumptions will be invalidated, and your parser will eventually grow into one of the 4+ fully featured redundant XML parsers in your project, each with their own set of weird assumptions, inconsistencies, and "supported bugs" (for backwards compatibility), and all of them will need to be maintained. At least until someone takes the time to make a breaking change to the data format, and rip them out to replace them with a proper off-the-shelf JSON parser that has orders of magnitudes more eyeballs fixing the corner cases. Then you'll only have 3+. > A full XML parser comes with a whole ton of bloat you don't need for that! I'll take minor binary bloat over major maintenance bloat any day. And you're wrong: It turns out I actually need a lot of that "bloat" in the next revision. > Plus, if there's ever a problem with those files, the outsourced XML parser will tend to give the end-user absolutely useless error messages. If you have a blindly auto-generated XML-to-binary-format reflection based converter, sure. That's not a good reason to write off "off the shelf" XML parsers outright though, when there's plenty of ways to use them that will give you perfectly fine error messages. To keep with your theme of generalizations: in-house XML parsers tend to give the end-user no error messages, which is far worse ;)
digi_owl 12y ago
I suspect that the current patent cold war results in a number of programmers, never mind managers, being vary of glancing at third party solutions...

kybernetikos 12y ago

> Which is why the message of "Not Invented here" is a good one to repeat over and over. So, there is a problem where many developers would rather work on abstractions rather than concrete value-providing things. I suffer from this myself - if abstractions weren't interesting to us, we wouldn't be working in software. However, over the years I've discovered that many software projects are gaining negative value from some of their libraries, and I'm not sure which is the larger problem. http://yosefk.com/blog/redundancy-vs-dependencies-which-is-worse.html http://yosefk.com/blog/redundancy-vs-dependencies-which-is-w... describes the essential problem.

jcoffland 12y ago
So true. You always have to weight the cost of carrying around a dependency and what that will mean for others who will have to use and build your code in the future and on platforms like Windows where dependency resolution is far from trivial. Seen this way sometimes it's worth spending a few of hours writing a JSON parser to avoid adding a dependency. Probably not woth an XML parser though.

xamuel 12y ago

>obvious stuff like XML or JSON parsing! There is one case when those wheels can be worth (partially) reinventing: if you only need them to parse some files which use XML or JSON in a very restricted way. Say you've got a bunch of XML files which only go one level deep, only use ASCII, don't use namespaces, etc. A full XML parser comes with a whole ton of bloat you don't need for that! Plus, if there's ever a problem with those files, the outsourced XML parser will tend to give the end-user absolutely useless error messages.

yo-code-sucks 12y ago
Nope nope nope. Your not a special flower, you cannot do it better, at least not on my dime.
- xamuel 12y ago
  Did you even read what I wrote? Of course I can't do a better XML or JSON parser. But if what you need parsed is ten thousand lines of <key1>value1</key1> then I'm pretty sure I can write something a lot more efficient and portable, with better error reporting, than W3CBBQ, and I can do it in 10 minutes. That said, I'm very flattered you created a throwaway account just to respond to me.
  - MaulingMonkey 12y ago
    > then I'm pretty sure I can write something a lot more efficient Sure. > and portable ...it's hard to be "a lot more portable" than a simple C library that compiles out of the box on all your preferred compilers and platforms. Care to elaborate how you end up being "a lot more portable"? > with better error reporting Plenty of room to do your own error reporting with off the shelf parsers. > and I can do it in 10 minutes The bug reports, on the other hand, will last a lifetime. Because that format will change, your underlying assumptions will be invalidated, and your parser will eventually grow into one of the 4+ fully featured redundant XML parsers in your project, each with their own set of weird assumptions, inconsistencies, and "supported bugs" (for backwards compatibility), and all of them will need to be maintained. At least until someone takes the time to make a breaking change to the data format, and rip them out to replace them with a proper off-the-shelf JSON parser that has orders of magnitudes more eyeballs fixing the corner cases. Then you'll only have 3+. > A full XML parser comes with a whole ton of bloat you don't need for that! I'll take minor binary bloat over major maintenance bloat any day. And you're wrong: It turns out I actually need a lot of that "bloat" in the next revision. > Plus, if there's ever a problem with those files, the outsourced XML parser will tend to give the end-user absolutely useless error messages. If you have a blindly auto-generated XML-to-binary-format reflection based converter, sure. That's not a good reason to write off "off the shelf" XML parsers outright though, when there's plenty of ways to use them that will give you perfectly fine error messages. To keep with your theme of generalizations: in-house XML parsers tend to give the end-user no error messages, which is far worse ;)

digi_owl 12y ago

I suspect that the current patent cold war results in a number of programmers, never mind managers, being vary of glancing at third party solutions...