https://github.com/blakeembrey/swap-case
https://github.com/blakeembrey/is-upper-case
https://github.com/blakeembrey/title-case
https://github.com/blakeembrey/snake-case
https://github.com/blakeembrey/dot-case
https://github.com/blakeembrey/path-case
https://github.com/blakeembrey/camel-case
https://github.com/blakeembrey/param-case
https://github.com/blakeembrey/upper-case-first
https://github.com/blakeembrey/lower-case
https://github.com/blakeembrey/upper-case
https://github.com/blakeembrey/pascal-case
I could copy-paste from stack overflow, but I would have to maintain/test that function. I'd rather depend on something.
I could depend on a big "string-utils" library, but that would probably carry some useless baggage, and its scope may change or grow over time. Further, maybe it has a competitor module with a vehement following (like lodash vs underscore), which makes my module less appealing to them. This sucks for my module because I just want that one function.
The better alternative is just to depend on the exact, clearly named "to-camel-case" function which is very unlikely to ever change or grow in scope.
If it does change, then you need to integrate & test your dependencies, same as if it were part of your own codebase.
I think this point is often overlooked by the "I'll use someone else's code because I don't want to maintain it" folks. Code that is frozen doesn't rot: if you never change a piece of code and don't change its dependencies, it will continue working. Similarly, usually the reason you'd in-source a library is so you can change it at-will without getting some other maintainer to accept your patches. Most of the time, the effort that you save by using 3rd-party code is exactly equal to the time it would take to write & debug the library to get it to its current state, minus the time spent hunting for, learning, and integrating the library. Both of these are pretty easy to estimate when it's a one-line function; does it take you longer to find and npm install that one-line function than it does you to write a line of code?
Module authors work with and respect each other.
Most of the time, the effort that you save by using 3rd-party code is exactly equal to the time it would take to write & debug the library to get it to its current state, minus the time spent hunting for, learning, and integrating the library.
There are plenty of small functions that might be a little trickier than is first imagined. Time isn't the only issue. There's also much less cognitive overhead in the two minutes it takes to search npm, figure out the interface, install the module, and use it. I'd much rather outsource my yak shaving.
My dependencies already have tests, so I have no need to re-write them. When my tests do fail it is usually immediately clear where the problem lies since things are isolated.
In regards to time; it might take 1-2 minutes to find a module, and then 0 minutes the next time I need the same module. Compared to 1-2 minutes of writing/copy-pasting, a lot of time spent refining/fixing the code as edge cases are found, and then more time spent the next time that function is needed in another module.
This workflow has evolved through my own experiences with modules over the last couple years. I used to do a lot of copy-pasting and "kitchen sink" libraries, but now I find it much more efficient and better in the long run to isolate code. Just a few examples that would be a pain to maintain and rewrite in each project that uses them (potentially dozens):
https://github.com/bunnybones1/load-json-xhr/blob/master/ind... (was much smaller before edge cases!)
https://github.com/mattdesl/webgl-context/blob/master/index....
https://github.com/mattdesl/is-clockwise/blob/master/index.j...
https://github.com/mattdesl/point-circle-collision/blob/mast...
https://github.com/mattdesl/is-webgl-context/blob/master/ind...
https://github.com/mattdesl/lerp/blob/master/index.js
You also get the benefit of code that builds on its dependencies, like "lerp-array" which depends on lerp, and "line-circle-collision" which depends on "point-circle-collision".
https://github.com/mattdesl/line-circle-collision/blob/maste...
They drive modularity through the pattern of change, so their judgement is based on the development, rather than the code itself.
"You want to keep things that change at the same time in the same module. Parts of a system that change rarely should be in different services to those that are currently undergoing lots of churn. If you find yourself repeatedly changing two services together, that's a sign that they should be merged."
Although that article is about services, believe it can be applied to any type of modules.
6,597 downloads in the last day
28,883 downloads in the last week
134,084 downloads in the last month
'use strict';
module.exports = function isObject(x) {
return typeof x === 'object' && x !== null;
};
The part that really blows my mind? This project has had 57 commits to it! That's basically proof that the project management overhead exceeds a sane cost/benefit tradeoff.
The one advantage I see to having borderline-ridiculous packages such as this is that they do One Thing Well [1]. Yes you may copy/paste an isObject() function or roll your own, but then it becomes your responsibility to make sure it works for your project, and arguably far fewer eyes on it when it doesn't. As long as the project's maintainer is dedicated to making this the best way to determine whether a variable is an object, I have no problem using it.
Although, I do find the 57 commits irksome. Most of them are just upgrading dependencies (code style checkers, etc.), "fixing" indentation, and in one case 7 separate tweet-sized diffs to the README on the same day, as if this guy has git commit/push bound to Ctrl+S in his editor.
[1] http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/taoup/html/ch01s06.html
There is no reason for such a focused module to go out of style. As with many other small modules, the API and major version is locked barring some catastrophic event. Maybe there is a rare edge case that will break, and then you end up with two modules which are both useful in their own regard (like point-in-polygon and robust-point-in-polygon).
I think that function does what it's supposed to "well" in the sense that 1. it works, 2. the code is clean and obvious and 3. it doesn't try to be clever and do "complex" things which can introduce bugs.
I'm guessing from your complaint that you think it doesn't do things "well" because you prefer code to computationally efficient over conceptually and declaratively clear?
You can argue that "But for -this- little thing I can afford to be a clever and throw the obvious-looking code out the window!", but then everyone else also gets to do the same judgement too.
And then suddenly you're all using "clever" code all over the place with new ingenious ways to break everywhere in your code-base. And just like clockwork, your application will start breaking and nobody will know why without spending hours, days or even weeks debugging.
Let's say I generally don't think computationally efficient code is worth that cost. I'll make exceptions for specific code-portions which needs to be fast, but for my bread and butter code? Make it plain and simple!
The module in question is nothing but a #define macro. Javascript lacks a preprocessor and this community's response is apparently to outsource #define macro's to a centralized server.
>And just like clockwork, your application will start breaking
The alternative is that just like clockwork, your application grinds to a crawl and practically freezes the browser. Because you outsourced every last thing to someone who doesn't care about performance. Sure, it's fine for the static-html-page-that-you're-doing-in-node-for-some-inexplicable-reason. Just hope you know what you're doing when you do something more complicated.
I did do some tests a around this, but it showed nothing substantial. The comparison solution is much faster overall, the only point it falls down is with all lowercase strings where an early return would obviously be faster. Even a regexp was faster in some cases. It's highly subjective.
Sure, but one function per package is silly. Why not just put all the related utility functions in one package? Underscore does One Thing Well too. And if I really, really care about optimizing for small JS file size, I can just go in my Underscore.js file and remove all the functions I don't want to use.
It's nice to have the option.
Yeah, sure, if the maintainer becomes evil overnight he can break a lot of apps. If you live in fear then you probably won't enjoy npm very much.
var foo = [1, 2, 3, 4];
foo.bar = "I exist";
console.log(foo.bar);
foo.baz = function() { return "So do I"; }
console.log(foo.baz());
It's an alternative approach to software design which may feel alien if all you've ever used is copy-pasting for code re-use, or relying on large standard libraries and utility grab-bags.
Second, so what? So it's alright to copy and paste the function? It is alright if a coworker wrote the function and presented you with an interface? Would you have a problem if a single module that was "designed in isolation, documented in isolation and can be used in isolation" but was published internally?
[0]: https://github.com/blakeembrey/is-upper-case/blob/master/is-...