this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
780 points (98.3% liked)

Programmer Humor

32495 readers
293 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] dsemy@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

My problem was with the first line of your comment:

Yeah, I've given up trying to know all the libraries in my projects.

This leads me to assume that you don't actually know that those dependencies are as well maintained as you claim.

Obviously dependencies are important and make sense to use in many cases, but using trivial dependencies to speed up development isn't good.

As for your second point, I don't care who solved the problem. If you care, I hope you're smelting your own sand to build your own CPU and assembly language. But I'm obviously also not solving the exact same problem as the library already solved.

I was just saying it isn't you who solved the problem in that case, really, as the hard work was done for you. Honestly though, it was pointless and rude so I apologise.

[โ€“] Ephera@lemmy.ml 3 points 9 months ago

Apology taken.

This leads me to assume that you don't actually know that those dependencies are as well maintained as you claim.

Well, I can't guarantee that none of them are buggy, unmaintained etc.. But that's why I prefixed that sentence with "I feel".
On average, it seems to me like the code quality is a good bit higher than I'm able to produce under money/time constraints.

In particular, even the worst libraries tend to be not as bad as they may be in many other languages, because Rust's strict type system + compiler enforces quite a bit of correctness on its own.
Well, and the good libraries are just obsessed with correctness and performance, so they drag code quality upwards, even if they introduce a mild risk of a transitive dependency being a dud...