The most frustrating thing with the "Atomic architecture" bit with tiny packages is how obviously stupid it is. Any borderline sane person should look at isOdd/isEven and see that it's an awful idea

Instead they've elevated it to a cultural pillar and think they've come up with a great innovation. It's like talking to antivaxers

▲

RadiozRadioz 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's because it has a smart-sounding name. Some people are shallow and performative; some nice-looking blog post says they can have "atomic architecture", then the trend starts and everybody wants to show how enlightened they are.

▲

whstl 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not just the name or the smart explanation.

Atomic packages brings more money to the creators.

If you have two useful packages it's hard to ask for money, even if they're used by Babel or some popular React dependency.

If you have 900 packages that are transitive dependencies the same couple deps above, it's way easier to get sponsorship. This is a way to advertise themselves: "I maintain 1000 packages".

The first guy that did this in a not-nice way was a marketing/salesperson and has mentioned that they did on purpose to launch their dev career.

TLDR: This is just some weird ass pyramid thing to get Github sponsors or clout.

▲

williamcotton 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s not how we started down this path. See snark-free sibling comment from padjo.

▲

7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

RadiozRadioz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Both my claim and theirs are unsupported by evidence, therefore they are equally valid.

▲

padjo 6 hours ago | parent [-]

A third argument is that it was because of aliens from the planet Blotrox Prime. But I suppose without evidence we'll just have to accept that all three theories are equally probable.

▲

RadiozRadioz 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Interesting how you decided to switch to hyperbole instead of providing evidence for your claim. Backing up your viewpoint would have easily shut me down, putting the ball in my court to do the same. Instead you gave a knee-jerk childish response.

▲

padjo 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Interesting that rather than try to bolster your claim you resorted to a logical fallacy to justify it.

▲

RadiozRadioz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Hypocritical; you did the same with the hyperbole. Why are you stooping to my level instead of being the better person?

	▲	padjo 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nope. Just a reductio as absurdum that you decided to counter by asking that I maintain higher standards of debate than you. The notion that atomic architecture came about because people are stupid and performative is not really useful. Its fairly misanthropic and begs the question why it became so prevalent in JS specifically.

▲

padjo 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The philosophy was kinda refreshing in the early days. There was a really low barrier to publishing and people were encouraged to build and share tools rather than hoard things. It was probably somewhat responsible for the success of npm and the node ecosystem, especially given the paltry standard lib.

Of course, like most things, when taken to an extreme it becomes absurd and you end up with isOdd.

	▲	egeozcan 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think the issue is that the JavaScript ecosystem is so large that even the strangest extremes manage to survive. Even if they resonate with just 0.1% of developers, that’s still a lot of developers. The added problem with the atomic approach is that it makes it very easy for these fringes to spread throughout the ecosystem. Mostly through carelessness, and transitive dependencies.

▲

IsTom 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've seen some juniors writing risoni code like that. They've heard that you shouldn't write big functions, so obviously they forcefully split things until they can't be split anymore.

▲

groundzeros2015 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> It's like talking to antivaxers

This is not helpful.