> There is nothing inherent in using packages that means you have to blindly trust the code
Agreed, but packages are an additional layer of abstraction, and you and I both know that the vast, vast majority of devs will not "look under the hood".
Packages are often seen as a one-step plug-and-play solution. I don't want people to see my code that way. They should dive in and inspect it before using it (it is always written with this in mind - with extensive commenting and documentation).
> neither does providing a package mean you have to accept any more responsibility
Honestly, this is a personal thing for me. If people are using my code, I will feel responsible to some extent. IMO, the advantage of my method is that (at least a few) more people will test/audit my code as opposed to if it was available as a package. Which increases the likelihood of any possible bugs in the code getting caught.
Agreed, but packages are an additional layer of abstraction, and you and I both know that the vast, vast majority of devs will not "look under the hood".
Packages are often seen as a one-step plug-and-play solution. I don't want people to see my code that way. They should dive in and inspect it before using it (it is always written with this in mind - with extensive commenting and documentation).
> neither does providing a package mean you have to accept any more responsibility
Honestly, this is a personal thing for me. If people are using my code, I will feel responsible to some extent. IMO, the advantage of my method is that (at least a few) more people will test/audit my code as opposed to if it was available as a package. Which increases the likelihood of any possible bugs in the code getting caught.