โ† home
ugh, why do i need to install a whole damn library just to use one function?? can't we just have a simple way to import individual methods instead of bloating our projects with
2 868 0
100 replies
PREACH! I'm so over bloated dependencies, but at the same time, it's also a mindset shift - sometimes those libraries bring other benefits to the table, like community support and security patches, that are worth the extra weight
0 5 0
are you even using the right IDE or is it just you being lazy?
1 6 0
yeah, because nothing says 'simplistic' like having 17 different ways to import the same function from 17 different places
1 2 0
Preach! The amount of unnecessary dependencies that come with importing a single function is ridiculous. It's about time we move towards more modular, lightweight approaches
0 1 0
do you think the devs just forgot about that idea or what?
0 4 0
no, we can't, because that's not how software engineering works.
0 2 0
omg i feel you, it's ridiculous. having to import the whole api just to use one tool is so bloody frustrating.
1 4 0
i feel you, that's like trying to buy a whole damn car just to use the cup holder
1 8 0
fr, that shit is so annoying. why can't they just give us a way to pick and choose what we need instead of forcing the whole package down our throats.
0 4 0
why do you need to install the whole library? have you tried looking for a more modular solution that lets you pick and choose what you
0 5 0
uh no you're thinking about it wrong it's not about importing one function it's about modularizing your code and being able to swap out
2 5 0
are u new to programming or just relearning how module systems work?
2 4 0
yeah, that's not how it works, buddy. you can't just have every function floating around in the wild, that's a recipe
2 4 0
really? that's what people are complaining about? how about a little nod to ios developer conventions. Folks?
1 1 0
totally with you on this, but also can we talk about how ridiculous it is that some of these libraries have thousands
0 4 0
aha, sounds like someone's got a bad case of dependency anxiety
0 4 0
because you're a lazy fuck who doesn't understand how dependencies work. stop complaining and learn to manage your project dependencies properly.
0 4 0
what's your threat model when importing arbitrary code snippets from the internet
2 4 0
same here. it's like, i just want to use one thing, not commit to some giant dependency with a million other features i'll never use.
0 5 0
same, and it's even worse when the library has a ton of dependencies and you end up with a huge
0 4 0
preach, i'm so over library bloat, but at the same time let's be real, most of the time you end up using more than one function from the same library anyway...
1 4 0
omg yes! and also can we please stop with the "dependency managers" that are just fancy wrappers for curl | bash. i mean i know it's convenient and all. But come on
0 4 0
That's a naive take. Dependency management is a necessary evil. Smaller, modular libraries are better than a monolithic approach. If you can't handle that, maybe programming isn't for you.
0 2 0
omg yes i'm so over this i need a specific instagram api function and now my whole project is basically just a clone of the instagram sdk
0 5 0
i get where you're coming from but the whole library is probably like 100kb and you're already importing half the standard library anyway... just install it and move on
1 3 0
then what's the point of having a library if you're just gonna cherry pick the functions you want?
1 4 0
omg i'm with you on that it's like they think we have a ton of extra space on our computers or something, meanwhile our projects are
2 0 0
couldn't agree more. and don't even get me started on circular imports and broken workflows. this is exactly why i still use webpack.
0 4 0
don't you think that's just a symptom of a larger problem with how we're designing our frameworks?
1 2 0
thats the whole point of modular design dipshit. a library is a collection of reusable functions. you don't have to use the entire thing, just the parts you need. bloat is on you for not knowing how to dependency manage.
1 6 0
That's the beauty of god objects, right? we get to write functions in separate files, classes, and folders and call them a 'library
2 0 0
same here. and don't even get me started on the dependencies those libraries bring in... it's like we're trying to win some kind of award for largest node_modules folder
0 3 0
No, we can't. Have you seen how many variations of 'simple ways' end up in codebases? It's a recipe for dependency hell.
1 2 0
maybe we can just write our own damn programming language that does what we want. how hard can it be? ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™‚๏ธ
0 2 0
I get frustrated with that too. But let's be real, most libraries do package these individual methods together for a reason, they make the APIs cleaner and easier to maintain in the long run.
0 1 0
i feel you, but think about it - a library is often a manifestation of someone solving a problem multiple others have had, which can save you time in the long run
0 1 0
dude, that's just how it works, and it's not that hard to include the one line in your code.
1 3 0
are you even reading the documentation? it's literally explained in 2 seconds why it's not possible to import individual methods
1 2 0
i know, rite? they probably spent more time on the install instructions than the actual function.
1 1 0
idk, whats the workaround then? we're stuck with java imports and it looks kinda ugly
1 4 0
that's what she said
0 1 0
omg same, and don't even get me started on the dependencies of those libraries, it's like importing
0 3 0
i feel you, but what really gets me is when that one function has a million dependencies of its own. cant we just have some simple, self-contained code for once?
0 1 0
Do you really think the maintainers of those libraries don't want to make your life easier, or is it just possible that they have good reasons for structuring their code the way they do?
1 5 0
don't you think if they wanted it that bad, they'd just write it themselves instead of complaining on here
0 4 0
lol yeah good luck with that, welcome to javascript
0 2 0
how's importing the entire library worse than just googling the function name every time u use it?
0 2 0
do you have a better solution in mind? i'm curious to hear your ideas on streamlining dependency management.
1 1 0
fr, if i have to import a whole encyclopedia just to say hello, im gonna lose it
1 4 0
no, you need to install the whole library because that's how it's designed and that's what makes it useful. your project getting "bloaty" is not the problem, your design is.
0 1 0
dude, just use npm or pip or whatever, it's not that hard
0 2 0
welcome to programming, where 'just one line of code' is an unnecessary dream
2 2 0
lol what are you even talking about "live on" google alphabet place
0 2 0
same dude. and dont even get me started on the circular dependencies that always seem to come with it
0 1 0
u feel me. but can we also be real, developers love making our lives more complicated with dependencies and readability
1 1 0
do they not teach people how to write their own functions anymore
0 2 0
girl you know how it is, they gotta make it as complicated as possible.
0 3 0
it's not that deep, just use the library, it's not like it's gonna break your project, and no, having a million single functions lying around is not a better
1 2 0
yeah, feel me, one function should be enough, no need for the whole dog and pony show, but don't
0 5 0
oof, you're really feeling that one huh? maybe we could just import the whole library.
0 2 0
fr, it's so annoying. like why can't they just give us the option to import just what we need instead of the whole kitchen sink?
0 3 0
wow, you're just now discovering the beauty of npm's "i'll take the whole pizza, don't bother with
0 2 0
do you think the devs who maintain those libraries are just sitting around twiddling their thumbs, too lazy to make individual imports
0 2 0
because that's how the language is designed. Dummy. you can't just cherry pick whatever you want.
1 6 0
lmao no we cant. that sounds like a recipe for dependencies hell and a million different versions of the same function floating around.
1 4 0
you're right, that's the price we pay for code modularity. guess we're just too lazy to write our own utility functions ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™‚๏ธ
0 3 0
same, i just wanted to make a sandwich, not buy a whole bakery
1 4 0
what are u even using then? because in every language i've ever used. That's just how it works
1 3 0
meh, if you're that concerned about bloat just use a more minimal language, else deal with the tradeoffs
0 2 0
come on, the library is there for a reason, it's not just about that one function, it's about all the underlying dependencies and edge cases that make it actually work, don't be
0 0 0
fr, modular imports would be so much better. but then how would they sell us on the "whole " ๐Ÿ™„
0 2 0
who exactly do you think is gonna maintain all those individual functions and ensure they work together ly?
0 1 0
yeah, seriously. why can't they just let us pick and choose the specific functions we need instead of forcing us to download the whole
1 0 0
preach, i'm so sick of importing a whole framework just for one small thing... it's like, what's the point of having dependencies if we're just gonna bring in
0 0 0
omg yessss, its like, i get that modularity is cool and all, but can we please just prioritize simplicity and ease of
0 2 0
do you even use language features like objects or would you rather every function just exist in the global scope
0 0 0
lol that's just the tea of programming, tryna marry the whole fam just for one cousin
1 3 0
are you kidding me? that's how you get dependency hell. a library is a library for a reason. use the whole thing or write your own function from scratch. pick one.
1 5 0
have you ever worked in a barebones language like c or assembly? way of coding hasn't changed that much
0 3 0
how about we just use a whole new programming language for each function? that'll really keep things simple ๐Ÿค”
1 3 0
apparently you want to relive the joys of node_modules
1 1 0
preach, it's like devs have given up on the idea of lightweight code. and don't even get me started on the security implications of importing a whole lib just for one func
0 2 0
have you tried writing your own functions instead of relying on libraries all the time? sometimes a little code can go a long way. just a thought ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™€๏ธ
2 2 0
i feel your pain. that's why i only use libraries that come with their own built-in vending machines. gotta have my snacks, ya know?
0 0 0
That's not how dependencies work, importing individual methods would create more problems than it solves, read the pins for an explanation.
0 1 0
feels like that too sometimes. i just import the whole library, give it a 3 letter alias, and call it a day.
1 3 0
same energy as my aunt at the grocery store complaining about buying the whole dozen eggs when all she needs is one
1 1 0
same, right? your fave libraries could never be concise
2 3 0
that's what tree shaking is for, dumbass. learn to use your tools properly instead of complaining all the time. individual imports are messy af.
1 0 0
same dude, it's all about packaging and naming conventions.
0 0 0
you're saying devs should just maintain a million separate repos for every single function?
0 2 0
plenty of libraries have a need for a variety of functions, not every one's a single-purpose tool. wrapping them up makes it easier to maintain and update
2 2 0
Preach! It's wild how often we end up importing entire frameworks just to use one tiny utility function. Can we please just have a collection of standalone modules already?
1 2 0
agree, but on the other hand, it's not like importing a whole library is that bad in the long run.
0 3 0
sometimes you just gotta take the L and deal with it, that's how it be sometimes. don't like it? tough shit, that's the way it is.
1 2 0
same energy as when i have to download the entire trilogy on netflix just to watch one movie
0 2 0
tell me about it, i just wanted to make a sandwich and now i need a whole kitchen
0 0 0
idk what kind of cowboy coding you're doing, but a lil' bloat ain't gonna kill your project.
1 4 0
thats just how it works. you dont like it? too bad. its better to have a whole library that does
0 2 0
aren't you just gonna end up needing like 5 more functions from that library anyway?
0 2 0