Hacker News Reader

It's not one less thing to think about which is exactly the point. If you install 1 dep and it has 100 deps you now have 101 things to think about.

Or, you could look at it, it's 101 fewer things to think about. Besides, we're talking about a package that doesn't have any dependencies.

It doesn't have any dependencies yet -- what if leftpad decides it should depend on "pad", which depends on "stringutil" which depends on "unicodeutil" and "mathutil", etc.

I've never used npm, but doesn't it take at least as long to find, evaluate, and install a package like left-pad as it would to just write the function yourself when you find you need it?

Personally, no, but even if it did, what if a bug is found in the future? The community fixes the bug, not necessarily you!

The possibility of having bugs in code you don't control (that usually has a clause for no warranties) is an argument for implementing it yourself, not against it. Don't forget how hard it is to get a maintainer even agree on whether something is 1. a bug 2. that needs to be fixed.

Fair point. One does run the risk of having bugs in code out of their control by using a package manager such as NPM, but one gains a swath of other programmers inspecting the modules for bugs. And in module repositories for interpreted languages, its very much in your control to fix any bugs you might find, regardless of what the maintainer might say about it.

If someone already wrote the base code, we can always fork it and fix a bug or add a feature ourselves if it runs contrary to what the original authors desires.

Even getting a response just so you can know what the original author desires can take a long time and there is no warranties or guarantees that you will even get any response. To me, all the downsides that come with dependencies are not even close to worth it for saving 15 seconds.

Who cares what the original author desires?

If you fixed the bad behavior you're experiencing, and the original author's effort saved you hours or days of coding, what's the downside?

Perhaps I'm not arguing for 15 second long code changes. But other than typing a single if statement, what takes literally less than one minute to securely change in any partially-complex project?

The reality, however, is that if you took this point of view, you will spend your time reinventing the wheel, introducing bugs and wasting resources. That's how it works in real life.

Would simply copying something into your project as small as 17 lines make for a good compromise?

No - then you won't get updates easily and everyone reading your project would have to make sure that your copy of the module hasn't diverged from the original module before working with it, especially if it's a larger module that has full documentation and a community of people who know how to work on it.

I've never seen so many programmers advocate copy/pasting code before... it's really surprising!

Something about javascript makes people crazy...

That's what I thought, but what concerns me with 100's or even 1000's of dependencies is managing them. Things like figuring out which ones have security issues without reading the issue tracker for each.

No. I could find, evaluate and install that package quicker than I could write the code that carefully. And the second time I need it, it's just "remember, install". Also, keeps my code small and focused.

Do you not read the code of packages you're including in your projects? I usually do at least browse through the "beef" of the code for anything I consider adding as a dependency. And try to figure out what's the level of maintenance I can expect, history of bugs, sometimes try to contact the authors, etc.

In short: it would take me a whole lot more time to evaluate whether or not to depend on something as trivial as leftpad than to write it myself. I'm pretty confident I can do that in a minute or two and I trust my collaborators to not break it.

I'm curious since it strikes me as a hard problem to solve: How do you resolve having to deal with security issues with tens or hundreds of dependencies (and their dependencies)? How do you even know whether they have a security issue or a version bump is just a bug fix without digging into each one on a regular basis?

How do you know that you, as a lone developer, aren't writing insecure, unperformant, buggy code?

That's a fair point. But what would concern me, as a lone developer, is liability if you get hacked due to a known vulnerability in an npm module. If the company is looking for a head to roll and someone points out it was a known and resolved issue in later versions that could be a problem for me.

Does npm let you tag releases as security fixes? That would make automation to discover it possible.

NPM itself is clearly faulty, but I don't think the concept of outsourcing logic to dependencies is. If something is complex enough to have a legit security vulnerability, it's probably the sort of thing I don't really want to write myself. And yeah, that comes with the responsibility to stay up-to-date. But pretty sure my head would rightfully roll anyway if I wrote my own bootleg SSH protocol and got my company exploited.

> As far as having many versions that all do the same thing, there is usually winners and losers over time. Because of this I believe that eventually the dependency graph shrinks overall.

That's... very naive. No one goes back and rewrites perfectly working code just to change a library. If it works don't touch it. Computers don't care, and if you rewrite it, you're introducing a bug. Also, there's plenty of new code to write! And oh yeah you have a billion little libraries, all used by an engineering culture constantly distracted by the new shinny, so you're going to be stuck with libraries that that haven't updated.

You're gonna have a bad time.