Skip to main content

How To Avoid the Fear of Overkill

Something I read today in a Javascript forum gave me pause to think about broader attitudes in developer tools and libraries.
I love jQuery, but if this is all you want to do, jQuery is overkill. 

Javascript libraries are great if you want to do a lot of things, or one really complicated thing, but if you're just doing something small and simple, just write the javascript code. arandomgeek
I respectfully disagree.

Of course, people say this about a lot of other libraries and I defend against this stance in, more or less, all of these cases. I have heard it about Python and things in the standard library, about jQuery, about Django and Twisted, and about any language that isn't C. The common thread here is someone feeling that, as they are not using every or many parts of a tool, they should not use it for the one or two things it could be useful for. These people suffer from the Fear of Overkill.

I can summarize the argument against this very simply.

It would be overkill for you to write the entire tool for the one or two uses you have. It would also be overkill for you to write a bad version of the one or two uses, when you could use what already exists. It is not overkill to simply use what has already been provided to you.

Comments

Two cases to your argument -

1) Using the libraries saves time and improves quality. As a general approach, if I felt the need, I would rather strip down an existing library than build up a new one. The pieces I do keep have been field tested.

2) From a JQuery perspective, I am better off using its library. It, like most of the libraries, have been tuned for cross browser comparability. Those few functions that aren't, are well documented. I would not what to face the task of testing and validating 6-7 browsers for XHR calls I wrote. Or the use cases for the return states.
Rafe Kettler said…
Especially when you're dealing with something open source, where you could remove unnecessary pieces (with the right license) if space were a concern. And especially when languages like Python (dunno about JS) allow you to selectively import (e.g. from x import y). DIY attitudes make no sense to me.
And another argument in favor of jQuery in your case: consistency. By choosing the “big enough” library for a large chunk of your needs, your web site JavaScript code, from the smallest site up to your larger sites, all “looks the same” and can follow whatever set of idioms you use when writing jQuery code. If you forced yourself to step down into raw JavaScript for the smallest projects, then you would have an additional dialect of your own code to deal with.

Popular posts from this blog

Interrupting Coders Isn’t So Bad

Here’s a hot take: disrupting coders isn’t all that bad.

Some disruptions are certainly bad but they usually aren’t. The coder community has overblown the impact. A disruption can be a good thing. How harmful disruption might be a symptom of other problems.

There are different kinds of disruptions. They are caused by other coders on your team, managers and other non-coders, or meetings throughout the day.

The easiest example to debunk is a question from a fellow developer. Imagine someone walks over to your desk or they ping you on Slack, because they have “one quick question.” Do you get annoyed at the interruption when you were in the middle of something important? You help out your teammate quickly and get back to work, trying to pick up where you left off. That’s a kind of interruption we complain about frequently, but I’m not convinced this is all that bad.

You are being disrupted but your team, of which you are only one member of the whole unit, is working smoothly. You unstuck …

Announcing Feet, a Python Runner

I've been working on a problem that's bugged me for about as long as I've used Python and I want to announce my stab at a solution, finally!

I've been working on the problem of "How do i get this little thing I made to my friend so they can try it out?" Python is great. Python is especially a great language to get started in, when you
don't know a lot about software development, and probably don't even know a lot about computers in general.

Yes, Python has a lot of options for tackling some of these distribution problems for games and apps. Py2EXE was an early option, PyInstaller is very popular now, and PyOxide is an interesting recent entry. These can be great options, but they didn't fit the kind of use case and experience that made sense to me. I'd never really been about to put my finger on it, until earlier this year:

Python needs LÖVE.

LÖVE, also known as "Love 2D", is a game engine that makes it super easy to build small Lua…

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this.


CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer. 
One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC?

It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on. The only re…