Hacker News Reader

Comment by joeyrobert | Hacker News Reader

Full flippant source is 79 lines: https://github.com/mintchaos/flippant.js/blob/master/flippan...

Call me old-fashioned but I prefer not to use these "mini JS and CSS" libraries for every little thing I do. Any competent JS/HTML developer be able to implement something like this using CSS3 transitions in an hour. Too many developers just paste libraries together these days.

View on HN

Why spend time re-inventing the wheel? If you're looking to sharpen your skills, then go for it. I believe most people would prefer to get their product out the door as quickly as it's reasonable.

Agreed, results are important but you're taking a chance trusting any library Joe Programmer created in a couple of hours. I think it's a form of Cargo cult programming.

Where do you draw the line? No more frameworks?

It's up to the dev to go through source and understand it. Having a test suite helps.

What is the time it takes you to find this "library" and verify its fitness for your purpose? You can see that it causes runtime errors in IE8 and one had to read the source code to see this because it's not mentioned anywhere.

If you are making a custom implementation specific to your application, most of the css and js is not needed (especially if you are using jQuery) or are useless and need to be changed. It would be so trivial to write you would not even think of finding a library for it.

Hour is a long time when you can use libraries to do stuff like this in a manner of minutes.

It's never minutes. Adopting someone else's library means now you're debugging their code on browsers they don't use. And, you need to figure out the inevitable idiosyncrasies like why do "card" and "modal" modes exist?

Sometimes it's worth it. For this? Seems unlikely.

If I'm paying my dev $100k/year, I'd rather spend that $48/hour doing something else.

What's he going to do when he comes across a problem where these is no library that solves it?

It seems pretty obvious that he'd write the code himself in that case because it's actually a good use of his time. Are we pretending like the only options are "Never use code that's not invented here" and "Be totally reliant on other people to write your code for you"?

If only this wasn't a topic and tendency covered extensively over the past 50 years.

I've noticed a creeping mindset for some people that if they don't write their own code, they can't understand what's going on. I would rather have a developer well versed in reading and understanding code than one who has to write the bible by scratch.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com