I love shitting on Python, but I feel like all those problems are present in libraries for other languages as well. There’s a tonne of that crap for JS/TS.
Similarly, I find a fair number of Rust crates (that I want to use) have virtually no doc or inline examples, and use weird metaprogramming that I can’t wrap my head around.
Are we living in a world in which the JS/TS ecosystem is the yardstick by which we measure well written code? I mean… Wait a minute! I figured it out! This is the Bad Place!
I mean, if we’re talking about all those problems, the no-type-annotations issue is rather specific for Python, JS/TS and Ruby.
But in general, I feel like there’s somewhat of an old world vs. new world divide, which happened when package registries started accepting libraries from everyone and their cat.
In C, for example, most libraries you’ll use will be quite well-documented, but you’ll also never hear of the library that Greg’s cat started writing for the niche thing that you’re trying to do.
Unfortunately, Greg’s cat got distracted by a ball of yarn rolling by and then that was more fun than writing documentation.
That’s the tradeoff, you get access to more libraries, but you just can’t expect all of them to be extremely high-quality…
You should look at some old Perl or C code. I have even seen some shell code that makes me want to bash my head in till death with an IBM Model M Keyboard
Similarly, I find a fair number of Rust crates (that I want to use) have virtually no doc or inline examples, and use weird metaprogramming that I can’t wrap my head around.
Is it really a true rust crate if it doesn’t contain at least one inscrutable macro?
I love shitting on Python, but I feel like all those problems are present in libraries for other languages as well. There’s a tonne of that crap for JS/TS.
Similarly, I find a fair number of Rust crates (that I want to use) have virtually no doc or inline examples, and use weird metaprogramming that I can’t wrap my head around.
Are we living in a world in which the JS/TS ecosystem is the yardstick by which we measure well written code? I mean… Wait a minute! I figured it out! This is the Bad Place!
What took you so long?
Every time I have a problem, I throw a regex on it, and BOOOOM, right away I have a different problem
I mean, if we’re talking about all those problems, the no-type-annotations issue is rather specific for Python, JS/TS and Ruby.
But in general, I feel like there’s somewhat of an old world vs. new world divide, which happened when package registries started accepting libraries from everyone and their cat.
In C, for example, most libraries you’ll use will be quite well-documented, but you’ll also never hear of the library that Greg’s cat started writing for the niche thing that you’re trying to do.
Unfortunately, Greg’s cat got distracted by a ball of yarn rolling by and then that was more fun than writing documentation.
That’s the tradeoff, you get access to more libraries, but you just can’t expect all of them to be extremely high-quality…
You should look at some old Perl or C code. I have even seen some shell code that makes me want to bash my head in till death with an IBM Model M Keyboard
That’s why they named the shell like that
I feel like there’s a very fine balance for the effort required to publish a package.
Too easy and you get npm.
Too hard and you get an empty repo.
I feel like Java is actually doing a relatively good job here. Most packages are at least documented a bit, though obviously many are outdated.
Uh, there are an absolute fuckload of Java libs out there with nothing more than auto-generated garbage Javadocs.
Is it really a true rust crate if it doesn’t contain at least one inscrutable macro?
It’s one of the
macro_rules!Not even one full day after posting this and here I am debugging one of my own inscrutable macros for a version upgrade lmao.
Lol also the importing of lpad and iseven