Most of these trivial things probably take nontrivial time, and if you add all of them together for all the trivial projects you use, it’s probably saved a really serious chunk of time.

The ocean is made of “trivial” drops of water, yada yada.

It's really a content library, which is useful, but it's not in the mission-critical category where developers can get a rubber stamp budget approval from their boss. It's a great project to get your name out there as an open source developer, rather than a viable business model IMO.

And I'm not even going to _start_ on what I think of your attitude towards test tooling vs "central libraries" other than to note that if you don't consider test tools central to your development process, I think you have bigger problems.

> And I'm not even going to _start_ on what I think of your attitude towards test tooling vs "central libraries" other than to note that if you don't consider test tools central to your development process, I think you have bigger problems.

That's not my attitude at all and is a bullshit strawman. I actually do donate to libraries that are fundamental to our test framework. Faker is just definitely not one of them.

Your code quality is irrelevant. What matters is did it save you time, and what is that time worth to you and your business.

Tough crowd.

Always charge, or get value somehow, because I can promise you people will feel entitled to whatever baseline you give them (in this case ‘free’).

Everyone and everything is replaceable, oh cruel world, why you do us dirty like that?