> The term “evil” is being used partially hyperbolic to make a point.
Kind of bonkers this even needs to be said, and even then it's missed/ignored.
Kind of bonkers this even needs to be said, and even then it's missed/ignored.
I'd prefer instead a more balanced title like "Remember to Consider the Costs When Using Package Managers", or whatever.
Your "more balanced title" isn't even close to what I am saying. I am saying that Package Managers are just bad and should not be used. Not "remember to consider the costs". The net cost is bad for everyone, that's why I said "evil".
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.
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"
I a little annoyed that HackerNews post renamed it to "A critique of package managers" because that implies very different connotations. I'd view an article written like that as if I have some criticisms that could be addressed, rather than the entire concept being bad from the start.
What I'm saying is that you have failed in this argument. You hardly even attempt to make it. Thus clickbait.
You said "this is why I am saying it is evil, as it will send you to hell quicker."
Okay, so then it's up to you to prove this hell actually exists. But you don't. You just assert its existence -- "Dependency hell is a real thing which anyone who has worked on a large project has experienced." By framing it this way, you can dismiss anyone who claims to not have experienced this as not having sufficient experience. But reading the comments here, a lot of people have experienced a sort of "dependency hell" (the kind that's talked about in the wiki you link to) that is solved by package managers.
So that's why it's classed as clickbait -- you (admittedly) wrote a provocative headline that you don't even remotely back up.
FYI for the future since you're lamenting in many comments that people are misinterpreting you, this is why. Given that you don't really make an attempt to prove this dependency hell and package managers are evil, and you don't acknowledge anything good about them, it's reasonable to assume your bias is just that dependencies are evil at their core. It's actually the most charitable reading because otherwise you seem confused.
I think you're splitting hairs if you're saying that these points from the article argue against package managers but don't argue against using third party dependencies.
I similarly think you're splitting hairs if to consider "package managers are useful?" and "third party dependencies are useful?" as distinct points.
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".
No it isn't.