I think it's reasonable to ask that we do a better job of identifying the equivalent of "experimental treatments" so people can do a proper risk assessment, but assuming that "everything published to npm" is automatically suspect is not the right heuristic.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
IMO, a more charitable interpretation of the "too many dependencies" objection is that there's a lot of (perceived, at least) cognitive overhead to just getting things done.
-
People are usually referring to total count of transitive dependencies, but cognitive load for well behaved code only applies to direct dependencies.
-
I've seen this used more in the context of "you have to know about a lot of distinct things to just get started" — e.g. npm, git, a terminal, an editor, browser, the DOM, HTTP, HTML, CSS, gulp, testing frameworks, etc.
-
The web seems strictly easier than the book I had to read in 2005 to get started with objective C.
-
Won't argue with you there!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Perhaps they avoid dependencies because they prefer utility code with artisanal, hand-crafted bugs
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I would say that distribution of dependencies in a reliable fashion is a problem and that leads to people think the dependency is a problem.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think this is often due to frustration. If we write libraries like they only ever get 1% of the user’s attention, things would improve
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Hmmm which Giants exactly write most of the junk dependencies?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.