Comment by tugberkk
1 day ago
I believe we can still do them for fun, for practice. But having them readily available (also, tested) when you are trying to build something is much better.
1 day ago
I believe we can still do them for fun, for practice. But having them readily available (also, tested) when you are trying to build something is much better.
Both views have valid points. I guess it depends on how quickly you need to get something up and running. Battle-tested libraries definitely have their pros, but then again the surface area for possible bugs is also greater. For sure, most of my code in Rust for instance is quite complex and I wouldn't be able to do it without external crates. That said, in most projects I end up with 300+ indirect dependencies, most of which I don't even know anything about. It adds to compile time, final binary size and most importantly, I'm building my software on top of a huge stack of stuff I don't really know. I guess the higher level we go, the less we can avoid this anyway. Nevertheless some of my points don't necessarily apply to interpreted languages.