Never use a dependency that you could replace with an afternoon of programming

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by nayuki on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @04:23PM (#24125537)

> don't use a dependency to implement your core business

In logic language, you're saying "If X is your core business, don't outsource X".

> Is JSON parsing our core business? No, so why would we ever write -- and thereby commit to supporting for its entire lifetime -- JSON parsing code? All the code you write and support should be directly tied to what you as a business decide are your fundamental value propositions. Everything else you write is just fat waiting to be cut by someone who knows how to write a business case.

The rest of your argument is interpreted as "If X is not your core business, don't in-house X".

These two logical implication statements are not equivalents of each other, but are converses. Casual language often conflates If, Only-If, and If-And-Only-If.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by soedirgo on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @05:46PM (#24126409)

Since we're in pedanticville, these aren't converses, but inverses. The converse goes "If you don't outsource X, then X is your core business".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by jdmichal on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @09:53PM (#24127885)

I agree with this statement also. By writing code to do JSON parsing, JSON parsing is now part of your business.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by nayuki on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @06:38PM (#24126829)

Thanks, you are right. A converse is logically equivalent to an inverse, so I'm only half wrong. =)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by michaericalribo on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @08:28PM (#24127472)

Ah, yes, everyone knows the three values of Boolean logic...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by zeeZ on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @02:26AM (#24129108)

true, false and null

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by mstade on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @04:07AM (#24129633)

Actually it's True, False, and FileNotFound. :o)

https://thedailywtf.com/articles/What_Is_Truth_0x3f_

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by zimpenfish on Thursday August 13, 2020 @12:26PM (#24145111)

True, False, Null and OffByOne

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by Closi on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @04:32PM (#24125632)

I think they both follow similar thinking.

You should spend time implementing your core business implies that you shouldn’t spend time implementing things that aren’t in your core business, otherwise the first statement is pretty useless.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by pests on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @04:33PM (#24125644)

Maybe not equivalents but definitely two arguments for his core point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by jaggederest on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @05:06PM (#24125969)

core business = C

outsource = O

Object = x

x ∉ C ↔ O(x)

If the symbols don't show up:

if-and-only-if x is not in C, O(x)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by nothal on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @05:59PM (#24126528)

If I wanted to learn more about rigorous, non-elementary logic, do you have a recommended resource? I've taken a course in intro level probability theory which covered it generally and another course that built on it lightly but nothing rigorous and I am wooed by how concise things become in a logical form.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by renewiltord on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @06:03PM (#24126552)

A Tour Through Mathematical Logic. You don't have to do any proofs. If you learn Propositional Logic and First Order Logic you'll already have most of the tools to invent the rest.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by hinkley on Tuesday August 11, 2020 @05:34PM (#24126250)

I think the problem is that the individual contributor has decided to make that chunk of logic their business. This will probably not benefit the team or the organization.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by quest88 on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @12:22PM (#24133626)

What is the point you're trying to make?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Never use a dependency that you could replace with an aft... by tome on Wednesday August 12, 2020 @06:33AM (#24130455)

Ha! I had exactly the same thought.

[ Parent | on HN ]