Shearing point

242 points · 11 comments · view on lemmy.world

11 Comments

TootSweet@lemmy.world · 31 pts · 110d (3 replies)

"A little copying is better than a little dependency."

tatterdemalion@programming.dev · 21 pts · 110d (2 replies)

Judgement call. When it's something prone to change that's hard to get right, duplicating it just creates more maintenance burden.

TootSweet@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 110d

For sure. But I've seen a lot more sins committed in the name of reusing code than in the name of minimizing dependencies.

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 109d

Plus, it's bloat. A snippet of extra code isn't going to cause much trouble, but then you end up doing it a lot, and there's snippets in the snippets, and all the sudden something that used to fit on a floppy is 3 gigs.

I have no idea how much of a factor this is relative other various performance-sacrificing shortcuts, but Wirth's law is a thing.

jbrains@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 110d

Depend on abstractions. This isn't hard. 🤷

yessikg@fedia.io · 3 pts · 109d (1 reply)

When I do a security audit on apps with hundreds of dependencies, I die a little bit

CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 109d

Does it matter what kind of dependancy? Like, sure, if it's somebody's 5-year-old school project that's bad, I guess. (I'm experiencing this meme right now)

nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 110d (2 replies)

Reuse is only good in the context of 90s era OO programming wisdom of "Coupling is bad, cohesion is good".

Metype@pawb.social · 17 pts · 110d (1 reply)

Wait so I should reinvent the wheel constantly! I knew I was right about that!!

olafurp@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 109d

I also think an implementation should depend on how many the developer remembers to change

mormegil@programming.dev · 1 pts · 105d

Another level of this dilemma: