I've seen this argument made frequently. It's clearly a popular sentiment, but I can't help feel that it's one of those things that sounds nice in theory if you don't think about it too hard. (Also, cards on the table, I personally really like being able to pull in a tried-and-tested implementation of code to solve a common problem that's also used by in some cases literally millions of other projects. I dislike having to re-solve the same problem I have already solved elsewhere.)

Can you cite an example of a moderately-widely-used open source project or library that is pulling in code as a dependency that you feel it should have replicated itself?

What are some examples of "everything libraries" that you view as problematic?

▲

skydhash 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Anything that pulled in chalk. You need a very good reason to emit escape sequences. The whole npm (and rust, python,..) ecosystem assumes that if it’s a tty, then it’s a full blown xterm-256color terminal. And then you need to pipe to cat or less to have sensible output.

So if you’re adding chalk, that generally means you don’t know jack about terminals.

	▲	igregoryca 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Some people appreciate it when terminal output is easier to read. If chalk emits sequences that aren't supported by your terminal, then that's a deficiency in chalk, not the programs that wanted to produce colored output. It's easier to fix chalk than to fix 50,000 separate would-be dependents of chalk.
	▲	Dylan16807 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I appreciate your frustration but this isn't an answer to the question. The question is about implementing the same feature in two different ways, dependency or internal code. Whether a feature should be added is a different question.