1GZ0

Maybe that's what the funding is meant to help fix?

Yes, because when you build a product on top of something, you support your dependencies. Crazy idea, I know.

It was the goose all along.

Yeah, no thanks..

I'll just stick with a $5 vps with lamp and jjquery

I hate the fact that modern webdev has become to unnecessarily complex that developers unironically turn to LLMs instead of realising that it doesn't have to be like this.

Yes, and they've been at it for a while. its honestly hard to watch.

Darkreader plus 150-200% zoom and you have something pretty usable on hidpi displays. You could always try making your own frontend for HN, it's pretty trivial :)

Writing for AI honestly doesn't seem much different to writing for pagerank algorithms which SEO specialists have been doing for years. The only change is that almost all the SEO content on the web is now being written by AI, for AI to later summarise.

Somewhere in Denmark, DHH is smiling

So they're going after mukbang YouTubers now?

Its not clickbait though.

You should try reading the article before passing judgement.

Its not like the article is called "5 facts that will make you hate package managers. Number 5 will shock you"

Liability: "Something for which one is liable; an obligation, responsibility, or debt."

Third party dependencies absolutely are liabilities. You are liable to vet them, inspect their licenses and keep them updated while ensuring that they continue working with your existing code.

This is not something package managers help you do. Package managers like NPM make it trivial to skip these steps entirely.

What is being argued for, is a more thoughtful approach to handling third party dependencies. Or at the very least, the need for people to realise that there are costs associated with bringing third party dependencies into your codebase.

Its not splitting hairs at all. Its more of an presumption on the part of a large number of readers, that the 2 points argued conflate to "Package manager suck, because third party dependencies suck and you should write everything from scratch instead".

> It's completely fair game to react to the provocation rather than the substance of the article itself.

Yeah, but its down right stupid to do so.

The title isn't even misleading or part of a Motte-and-bailey argument.

People just hear "Package Managers are Evil" and assume that the author means you shouldn't use third party dependencies. Which is NOT what's being argued.

But I guess you'd know that, if you read passed the title.

The Author isn't arguing for not using third party dependencies. He's arguing for developers to be more conscious of the dependencies they use, by manually vetting and handling them. That screams "I've been down the package manager route and paid the price". Not inexperience.