From 592d92d512a6ebe82022adb0244ee0a77a8c128f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ekaitz Zárraga Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 15:21:00 +0200 Subject: Git push Clopher series start --- content/clopher/01-Intro.md | 13 ++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'content/clopher/01-Intro.md') diff --git a/content/clopher/01-Intro.md b/content/clopher/01-Intro.md index 2a2e90d..ce07f5d 100644 --- a/content/clopher/01-Intro.md +++ b/content/clopher/01-Intro.md @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ know– it's also about remembering that libraries can't be software you just import: they should be read, analysed and, often, thrown away in favor of an ad-hoc solution. Many times ad-hoc solutions reduce the codebase size and they solve the problem more accurately, as they are specifically design to solve -*our* problem. +*our* problem.[^1] Also, it's good to tell yourself you can code everything from scratch and try to prove it true. @@ -83,6 +83,17 @@ I'm just sharing my experiences. I'm looking at the abyss and telling you what I see from this view, pointing the interesting things I spot. +[^1]: As a note, while I was writing this, I experienced some issues with + nested dependencies in a different piece of software I was using. + Dependencies can be understood as a tree, with your project at the root. More + deep the tree is, longer time for changes to arrive the root of the tree from + the leaves, because changes must be accepted in all the nodes of the affected + branch and developers are busy. This can be a problem like in the case I + experienced where a bug in a leave of the tree was solved but the root was + broken and was unable to solve the issue because they needed an intermediate + node to update the version of the leave. This *hurts*. + *(They should've never added the change in the first place but when + dependencies go deep it's more difficult to detect bugs)* [gopher]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gopher_%28protocol%29 [gopher-rfc]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1436 -- cgit v1.2.3