"Subtle bugs that takes years to manifest" are way more likely to occur with code you write yourself because you didn't want to import someone's production-hardened code than with popular dependencies.

Take crypto code. Which do you trust: a homebrew implementation of AES-GCM because nobody wanted to add a dependency, or libsodium?

I feel like crypto is an outlier; you should definitely use well-vetted libraries for that for a whole plethora of reasons.

However, I think the reason that people got upset over the left-pad thing was because it was a library that most engineers could write fairly easily, without adding in another failure point.

If you rely on the the language/platform's built-in libraries, typically the amount of wheel-reinventing you are doing boils down to writing simple wrappers, without adding in another external point of failure. These libraries are typically more production-hardened than something you'd find on NPM or Maven or Nuget.

Or take leftpad. The point is there is a spectrum along which the cost/reward calculation varies. Absolutely don't roll your own crypto and absolutely roll your own leftpad. Maybe this is a bad conclusion, but I think it's important to address that not all dependencies are crypto, at any rate.

Another example is internationalization. Most of the reason why software is bad for people who don't use non-Latin text is that people keep writing homebrew text code instead of using dependencies. This has ugly cultural implications, and it's entirely because of the "copying is better than dependencies" philosophy.

> Or take leftpad.

Leftpad was a problem with a particular package management system, not with code reuse. It's true that avoiding code reuse is a way to avoid package management problems, but it's kind of like the way decapitation is a way of avoiding mental health problems.

As pcwalton already said, the problem with left-pad was with npm and not the concept or the usage of dependencies per se.

This thread is debating that premise. Your argument is ultimately circular: “the problem with leftpad was npm because the problem with leftpad is npm”. pcwalton may well be correct (we often disagree and frustratingly he’s probably right more often than me) but not because of this circular argument.