Sure, but nevertheless: if this were a reality, sure, it would be perfectly fine! But we don't live in the fantasy world so we have problems.
This is why people don't complain about this kind of code being moved to standard libraries: stdlibs they are often heavily audited (with exceptions),
So maybe that's a suggestion from me: moving SOME things (NOT ALL) that are traditionally in stdlibs in other languages to the stdlib of your own language.
Or another: perhaps force yourself to use primarily audited libraries (parent commenter mentioned NewtonSoft.JSON... this is a good one that is an industry standard).
I however still won't bulge that depending on too many mystery libraries is not a good thing :/
> How do you disambiguate what is a crucial feature and what is overhead
To keep using the same two examples: if you don't need something for 99% of regular use cases, then it can definitely be optional.
But optional doesn't mean the same as "non existent". I'm not advocating removing features or not making it, like another person said. I'm just advocating building software a bit differently.
Instead of having 100 features and a lot of dependencies in one root package, have instead 1 base package (with fewer features and fewer dependencies) + N plugin packages (with the remaining features and dependencies).
This way you can reduce the blast radius of problematic dependencies without removing features.
Naturally you need good DX, the core package must implement something, it can't be just an empty package that doesn't do anything and requires 200 other packages to work. But there are again no silver bullets here.
Sure, but nevertheless: if this were a reality, sure, it would be perfectly fine! But we don't live in the fantasy world so we have problems.
This is why people don't complain about this kind of code being moved to standard libraries: stdlibs they are often heavily audited (with exceptions),
So maybe that's a suggestion from me: moving SOME things (NOT ALL) that are traditionally in stdlibs in other languages to the stdlib of your own language.
Or another: perhaps force yourself to use primarily audited libraries (parent commenter mentioned NewtonSoft.JSON... this is a good one that is an industry standard).
I however still won't bulge that depending on too many mystery libraries is not a good thing :/
> How do you disambiguate what is a crucial feature and what is overhead
To keep using the same two examples: if you don't need something for 99% of regular use cases, then it can definitely be optional.
But optional doesn't mean the same as "non existent". I'm not advocating removing features or not making it, like another person said. I'm just advocating building software a bit differently.
Instead of having 100 features and a lot of dependencies in one root package, have instead 1 base package (with fewer features and fewer dependencies) + N plugin packages (with the remaining features and dependencies).
This way you can reduce the blast radius of problematic dependencies without removing features.
Naturally you need good DX, the core package must implement something, it can't be just an empty package that doesn't do anything and requires 200 other packages to work. But there are again no silver bullets here.