Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This is why I have begin to prefer languages with comprehensive, batteries-included standard libraries so that you need very few dependencies. Dep Management has become a full time headache nowadays with significant effort going into CVE analysis.



I think this is the root of the problem.

I think library/runtime makers aren't saying "let's make an official/blessed take on this thing that a large number of users are doing" as much as they should.

Popular libraries for a given runtime/language should be funded/bought/cloned by the runtime makers (e.g. MS for .NET, IBM/Oracle for Java) more than they are now.

I know someone will inevitably mention concerns about monopolies/anti-trust/"stifling innovation" but I don't really care. Sometimes you have to standardize some things to unlock new opportunities.


Instead of bloating the base language for this, a trusted entity could simply fork those libraries, vet them, and repackage into some "blessed lib" that people like you can use in peace. In fact, the level of trust needed to develop safe libraries is less than developing language features.


That's basically what Boost[1] brought to C++.

[1]: https://www.boost.org/




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: