Mixing
Should you use a library when you can do the task without it?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am in a situation where I can use an open source JavaScript plugin to fulfill a task. But when I tried to use it,I found myself I have to redesign lot of things of what I already have done,and it adds a certain complexity, in my humble opinion, to the project. Whereas I can achieve the same task with a clean code I can craft myself, and without needing to change what I have done so far.
Should you opt for a library anyway in this situation (like for the sake of better quality code?)
code-quality libraries
asked 2 hours ago
Billal Begueradj
4863726
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am in a situation where I can use an open source JavaScript plugin to fulfill a task. But when I tried to use it,I found myself I have to redesign lot of things of what I already have done,and it adds a certain complexity, in my humble opinion, to the project. Whereas I can achieve the same task with a clean code I can craft myself, and without needing to change what I have done so far.
Should you opt for a library anyway in this situation (like for the sake of better quality code?)
code-quality libraries
asked 2 hours ago
Billal Begueradj
4863726
How are you measuring "quality". By the number of lines of code? Classes? Complexity? Maintainability? Resilience?
– Laiv
32 mins ago
Sorry if the title is not clear, but in my humble opinion the first paragraph of my question is enough specific to the situation I am talking about
– Billal Begueradj
26 mins ago
The answer is NO, no matter what you consider quality or not. But if you provide us with your idea of quality, answers will address their reasoning to explain why the number of libraries don't improve what you consider quality. It's a mere matter of precession. As it's now, a simple NO will answer the question with no need of explanation.
– Laiv
21 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am in a situation where I can use an open source JavaScript plugin to fulfill a task. But when I tried to use it,I found myself I have to redesign lot of things of what I already have done,and it adds a certain complexity, in my humble opinion, to the project. Whereas I can achieve the same task with a clean code I can craft myself, and without needing to change what I have done so far.
Should you opt for a library anyway in this situation (like for the sake of better quality code?)
code-quality libraries
asked 2 hours ago
Billal Begueradj
4863726
I am in a situation where I can use an open source JavaScript plugin to fulfill a task. But when I tried to use it,I found myself I have to redesign lot of things of what I already have done,and it adds a certain complexity, in my humble opinion, to the project. Whereas I can achieve the same task with a clean code I can craft myself, and without needing to change what I have done so far.
Should you opt for a library anyway in this situation (like for the sake of better quality code?)
code-quality libraries
code-quality libraries
asked 2 hours ago
Billal Begueradj
4863726
asked 2 hours ago
Billal Begueradj
4863726
edited 1 min ago
asked 2 hours ago
Billal Begueradj
4863726
asked 2 hours ago
Billal Begueradj
4863726
asked 2 hours ago
Billal Begueradj
4863726
4863726
How are you measuring "quality". By the number of lines of code? Classes? Complexity? Maintainability? Resilience?
– Laiv
32 mins ago
Sorry if the title is not clear, but in my humble opinion the first paragraph of my question is enough specific to the situation I am talking about
– Billal Begueradj
26 mins ago
The answer is NO, no matter what you consider quality or not. But if you provide us with your idea of quality, answers will address their reasoning to explain why the number of libraries don't improve what you consider quality. It's a mere matter of precession. As it's now, a simple NO will answer the question with no need of explanation.
– Laiv
21 mins ago
add a comment |Â
How are you measuring "quality". By the number of lines of code? Classes? Complexity? Maintainability? Resilience?
– Laiv
32 mins ago
Sorry if the title is not clear, but in my humble opinion the first paragraph of my question is enough specific to the situation I am talking about
– Billal Begueradj
26 mins ago
The answer is NO, no matter what you consider quality or not. But if you provide us with your idea of quality, answers will address their reasoning to explain why the number of libraries don't improve what you consider quality. It's a mere matter of precession. As it's now, a simple NO will answer the question with no need of explanation.
– Laiv
21 mins ago
How are you measuring "quality". By the number of lines of code? Classes? Complexity? Maintainability? Resilience?
– Laiv
32 mins ago
How are you measuring "quality". By the number of lines of code? Classes? Complexity? Maintainability? Resilience?
– Laiv
32 mins ago
Sorry if the title is not clear, but in my humble opinion the first paragraph of my question is enough specific to the situation I am talking about
– Billal Begueradj
26 mins ago
Sorry if the title is not clear, but in my humble opinion the first paragraph of my question is enough specific to the situation I am talking about
– Billal Begueradj
26 mins ago
The answer is NO, no matter what you consider quality or not. But if you provide us with your idea of quality, answers will address their reasoning to explain why the number of libraries don't improve what you consider quality. It's a mere matter of precession. As it's now, a simple NO will answer the question with no need of explanation.
– Laiv
21 mins ago
The answer is NO, no matter what you consider quality or not. But if you provide us with your idea of quality, answers will address their reasoning to explain why the number of libraries don't improve what you consider quality. It's a mere matter of precession. As it's now, a simple NO will answer the question with no need of explanation.
– Laiv
21 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
You can probably answer that one for yourself: No, of course the mere fact of using libraries doesn't improve your code. If it did, it would be easy to write great code for everything with no effort.
What people mean when they recommend reuse over roll-your-own is that code in a well-known library is probably more correct, efficient and/or usable than what you would yourself come up with, simply because the authors have spent much more time on one particular area of functionality than you (with your deadline for the entire project) can afford.
But that's only a trend, not a law. Certainly there can be libraries that aren't as useful to use as roll-your-own would be. Often this happens when the library actually does much more than what you need, and does it in a way that would force you to adapt your own code base to their conventions much more than is reasonable. It looks as if this is exactly what you've found in this instance.
answered 41 mins ago
Kilian Foth
85.8k32231259
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Bill Gates once famously said:
"Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring
aircraft building progress by weight."
This quote comes to mind because the same could ultimately be said for the number of libraries. As a rule, I don't use libraries unless:
- There's no other way of getting it done. Doing without would no longer be economically viable to produce the product on time and on budget.
- It would save me a significant chunk of time as I would require many of the features of said library
- Library is well-used and any potential problems I might have would be well-documented.
Ideally all three conditions are met, but I'd settle for any two. Bottom line is you shouldn't be adding a library to your program unless it serves a purpose. If you have to ask what that purpose is, you probably shouldn't be adding it to your program. The code quality of your program therefore benefits because it elegantly calls upon each library without being weighed down by the need to necessarily rewrite libraries inside your program.
Good luck!
answered 32 mins ago
Neil
18.1k3161
1
Meaningful quote and I like fully agree with your answer.
– Billal Begueradj
30 mins ago
There's no other way of getting it donequite contradictory, isn't? If there's a library that does it, then there's "a way" to do it.It would save me a significant chunk of timethis is the only reason.
– Laiv
29 mins ago
@Laiv I would invite you to try to write a program in Java without the jdk then. To clarify, I don't mean "impossible". I mean impractical.
– Neil
28 mins ago
Edited for clarity.
– Neil
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
You can probably answer that one for yourself: No, of course the mere fact of using libraries doesn't improve your code. If it did, it would be easy to write great code for everything with no effort.
What people mean when they recommend reuse over roll-your-own is that code in a well-known library is probably more correct, efficient and/or usable than what you would yourself come up with, simply because the authors have spent much more time on one particular area of functionality than you (with your deadline for the entire project) can afford.
But that's only a trend, not a law. Certainly there can be libraries that aren't as useful to use as roll-your-own would be. Often this happens when the library actually does much more than what you need, and does it in a way that would force you to adapt your own code base to their conventions much more than is reasonable. It looks as if this is exactly what you've found in this instance.
answered 41 mins ago
Kilian Foth
85.8k32231259
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
You can probably answer that one for yourself: No, of course the mere fact of using libraries doesn't improve your code. If it did, it would be easy to write great code for everything with no effort.
What people mean when they recommend reuse over roll-your-own is that code in a well-known library is probably more correct, efficient and/or usable than what you would yourself come up with, simply because the authors have spent much more time on one particular area of functionality than you (with your deadline for the entire project) can afford.
But that's only a trend, not a law. Certainly there can be libraries that aren't as useful to use as roll-your-own would be. Often this happens when the library actually does much more than what you need, and does it in a way that would force you to adapt your own code base to their conventions much more than is reasonable. It looks as if this is exactly what you've found in this instance.
answered 41 mins ago
Kilian Foth
85.8k32231259
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
You can probably answer that one for yourself: No, of course the mere fact of using libraries doesn't improve your code. If it did, it would be easy to write great code for everything with no effort.
What people mean when they recommend reuse over roll-your-own is that code in a well-known library is probably more correct, efficient and/or usable than what you would yourself come up with, simply because the authors have spent much more time on one particular area of functionality than you (with your deadline for the entire project) can afford.
But that's only a trend, not a law. Certainly there can be libraries that aren't as useful to use as roll-your-own would be. Often this happens when the library actually does much more than what you need, and does it in a way that would force you to adapt your own code base to their conventions much more than is reasonable. It looks as if this is exactly what you've found in this instance.
answered 41 mins ago
Kilian Foth
85.8k32231259
You can probably answer that one for yourself: No, of course the mere fact of using libraries doesn't improve your code. If it did, it would be easy to write great code for everything with no effort.
What people mean when they recommend reuse over roll-your-own is that code in a well-known library is probably more correct, efficient and/or usable than what you would yourself come up with, simply because the authors have spent much more time on one particular area of functionality than you (with your deadline for the entire project) can afford.
But that's only a trend, not a law. Certainly there can be libraries that aren't as useful to use as roll-your-own would be. Often this happens when the library actually does much more than what you need, and does it in a way that would force you to adapt your own code base to their conventions much more than is reasonable. It looks as if this is exactly what you've found in this instance.
answered 41 mins ago
Kilian Foth
85.8k32231259
answered 41 mins ago
Kilian Foth
85.8k32231259
answered 41 mins ago
Kilian Foth
85.8k32231259
answered 41 mins ago
Kilian Foth
85.8k32231259
85.8k32231259
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Bill Gates once famously said:
"Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring
aircraft building progress by weight."
This quote comes to mind because the same could ultimately be said for the number of libraries. As a rule, I don't use libraries unless:
- There's no other way of getting it done. Doing without would no longer be economically viable to produce the product on time and on budget.
- It would save me a significant chunk of time as I would require many of the features of said library
- Library is well-used and any potential problems I might have would be well-documented.
Ideally all three conditions are met, but I'd settle for any two. Bottom line is you shouldn't be adding a library to your program unless it serves a purpose. If you have to ask what that purpose is, you probably shouldn't be adding it to your program. The code quality of your program therefore benefits because it elegantly calls upon each library without being weighed down by the need to necessarily rewrite libraries inside your program.
Good luck!
answered 32 mins ago
Neil
18.1k3161
1
Meaningful quote and I like fully agree with your answer.
– Billal Begueradj
30 mins ago
There's no other way of getting it donequite contradictory, isn't? If there's a library that does it, then there's "a way" to do it.It would save me a significant chunk of timethis is the only reason.
– Laiv
29 mins ago
@Laiv I would invite you to try to write a program in Java without the jdk then. To clarify, I don't mean "impossible". I mean impractical.
– Neil
28 mins ago
Edited for clarity.
– Neil
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Bill Gates once famously said:
"Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring
aircraft building progress by weight."
This quote comes to mind because the same could ultimately be said for the number of libraries. As a rule, I don't use libraries unless:
- There's no other way of getting it done. Doing without would no longer be economically viable to produce the product on time and on budget.
- It would save me a significant chunk of time as I would require many of the features of said library
- Library is well-used and any potential problems I might have would be well-documented.
Ideally all three conditions are met, but I'd settle for any two. Bottom line is you shouldn't be adding a library to your program unless it serves a purpose. If you have to ask what that purpose is, you probably shouldn't be adding it to your program. The code quality of your program therefore benefits because it elegantly calls upon each library without being weighed down by the need to necessarily rewrite libraries inside your program.
Good luck!
answered 32 mins ago
Neil
18.1k3161
1
Meaningful quote and I like fully agree with your answer.
– Billal Begueradj
30 mins ago
There's no other way of getting it donequite contradictory, isn't? If there's a library that does it, then there's "a way" to do it.It would save me a significant chunk of timethis is the only reason.
– Laiv
29 mins ago
@Laiv I would invite you to try to write a program in Java without the jdk then. To clarify, I don't mean "impossible". I mean impractical.
– Neil
28 mins ago
Edited for clarity.
– Neil
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Bill Gates once famously said:
"Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring
aircraft building progress by weight."
This quote comes to mind because the same could ultimately be said for the number of libraries. As a rule, I don't use libraries unless:
- There's no other way of getting it done. Doing without would no longer be economically viable to produce the product on time and on budget.
- It would save me a significant chunk of time as I would require many of the features of said library
- Library is well-used and any potential problems I might have would be well-documented.
Ideally all three conditions are met, but I'd settle for any two. Bottom line is you shouldn't be adding a library to your program unless it serves a purpose. If you have to ask what that purpose is, you probably shouldn't be adding it to your program. The code quality of your program therefore benefits because it elegantly calls upon each library without being weighed down by the need to necessarily rewrite libraries inside your program.
Good luck!
answered 32 mins ago
Neil
18.1k3161
Bill Gates once famously said:
"Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring
aircraft building progress by weight."
This quote comes to mind because the same could ultimately be said for the number of libraries. As a rule, I don't use libraries unless:
- There's no other way of getting it done. Doing without would no longer be economically viable to produce the product on time and on budget.
- It would save me a significant chunk of time as I would require many of the features of said library
- Library is well-used and any potential problems I might have would be well-documented.
Ideally all three conditions are met, but I'd settle for any two. Bottom line is you shouldn't be adding a library to your program unless it serves a purpose. If you have to ask what that purpose is, you probably shouldn't be adding it to your program. The code quality of your program therefore benefits because it elegantly calls upon each library without being weighed down by the need to necessarily rewrite libraries inside your program.
Good luck!
answered 32 mins ago
Neil
18.1k3161
edited 22 mins ago
answered 32 mins ago
Neil
18.1k3161
answered 32 mins ago
Neil
18.1k3161
answered 32 mins ago
Neil
18.1k3161
18.1k3161
1
Meaningful quote and I like fully agree with your answer.
– Billal Begueradj
30 mins ago
There's no other way of getting it donequite contradictory, isn't? If there's a library that does it, then there's "a way" to do it.It would save me a significant chunk of timethis is the only reason.
– Laiv
29 mins ago
@Laiv I would invite you to try to write a program in Java without the jdk then. To clarify, I don't mean "impossible". I mean impractical.
– Neil
28 mins ago
Edited for clarity.
– Neil
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
Meaningful quote and I like fully agree with your answer.
– Billal Begueradj
30 mins ago
There's no other way of getting it donequite contradictory, isn't? If there's a library that does it, then there's "a way" to do it.It would save me a significant chunk of timethis is the only reason.
– Laiv
29 mins ago
@Laiv I would invite you to try to write a program in Java without the jdk then. To clarify, I don't mean "impossible". I mean impractical.
– Neil
28 mins ago
Edited for clarity.
– Neil
22 mins ago
1
1
Meaningful quote and I like fully agree with your answer.
– Billal Begueradj
30 mins ago
Meaningful quote and I like fully agree with your answer.
– Billal Begueradj
30 mins ago
There's no other way of getting it done quite contradictory, isn't? If there's a library that does it, then there's "a way" to do it. It would save me a significant chunk of time this is the only reason.– Laiv
29 mins ago
There's no other way of getting it done quite contradictory, isn't? If there's a library that does it, then there's "a way" to do it. It would save me a significant chunk of time this is the only reason.– Laiv
29 mins ago
@Laiv I would invite you to try to write a program in Java without the jdk then. To clarify, I don't mean "impossible". I mean impractical.
– Neil
28 mins ago
@Laiv I would invite you to try to write a program in Java without the jdk then. To clarify, I don't mean "impossible". I mean impractical.
– Neil
28 mins ago
Edited for clarity.
– Neil
22 mins ago
Edited for clarity.
– Neil
22 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsoftwareengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f380021%2fshould-you-use-a-library-when-you-can-do-the-task-without-it%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
How are you measuring "quality". By the number of lines of code? Classes? Complexity? Maintainability? Resilience?
– Laiv
32 mins ago
Sorry if the title is not clear, but in my humble opinion the first paragraph of my question is enough specific to the situation I am talking about
– Billal Begueradj
26 mins ago
The answer is NO, no matter what you consider quality or not. But if you provide us with your idea of quality, answers will address their reasoning to explain why the number of libraries don't improve what you consider quality. It's a mere matter of precession. As it's now, a simple NO will answer the question with no need of explanation.
– Laiv
21 mins ago