Josh Triplett wrote: >Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> YA tiny Javascript "library" containing 3 lines of utterly trivial >> code. :-( >> >> I appreciate you're just following through a dependency chain from >> upstream for tape, but please push back on upstream and ask them why >> they're doing this kind of ridiculous split-up. Code re-use in general >> is a good plan, but not at the level of every trivial helper function >> being split out into its own library! > >"why" is because node (and other modern languages) make it easy to >create a package for any particular bit of reusable code. That Debian >fails to support that is Debian's problem, not upstream's.
In the general case I might agree, but have you actually looked at some of these cases? It's ridiculous in any language to have a separate library for a single function as trivial as: for (var i = 0; i < arguments.length; i++) { if (arguments[i] !== undefined) return arguments[i]; } Split it out into a separate helper function in the surrounding code? Sure. Add it to your own library with lots of other little helpers? Yes, by all means if you're using it a lot. But a separate library with its own docs and test suite and everything? No, that's a joke. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "Further comment on how I feel about IBM will appear once I've worked out whether they're being malicious or incompetent. Capital letters are forecast." Matthew Garrett, http://www.livejournal.com/users/mjg59/30675.html