Ask HN: What's with the micro/tiny/minimal libraries trend?
I've been seeing more and more libraries brag about how small they are. I get the impression that these libraries are more like a proof-of-concept, or they provide a very tiny subset of features that other libraries do, but developers put a trendy spin on that fact by calling it "micro" or "minimalist", or noting how large the size is when zipped. Is this view too cynical, or is there really something to be proud of here?
3 comments
Code minimization is an art unto itself. Embedded devices and mobile networking place a premium on space and features per byte of code.
Powerful and effective do not have to mean complex. Generally speaking, the smaller a library or tool is, the faster it performs and the easier it is to debug.
This trend is a rediscovery/reinvention of the old UNIX philosophy of do one thing, and do it well. Groupss of small, well written programs combined makes for a more customized end result. There are no extra, unused features that often just take up space in larger libraries and occasionally have side effects as the code is refactored or the library is updated.
Powerful and effective do not have to mean complex. Generally speaking, the smaller a library or tool is, the faster it performs and the easier it is to debug.
This trend is a rediscovery/reinvention of the old UNIX philosophy of do one thing, and do it well. Groupss of small, well written programs combined makes for a more customized end result. There are no extra, unused features that often just take up space in larger libraries and occasionally have side effects as the code is refactored or the library is updated.
I agree with this summary. It's not a trend, but a rediscovery of the tradition and philosophy of "do one thing and do it well". Small/minimal libraries do not necessarily mean "proof of concept" or "tiny subset of features". They usually aim to provide one generic, reliable and reusable feature per library/module. There is great value and flexibility in that approach.
As another person noted, it's also a reaction against frameworks like jQuery, Bootstrap, Angular, Polymer, and yes, even React. Some people prefer to combine only the functions they need, rather than include an all-in-one dependency.
As another person noted, it's also a reaction against frameworks like jQuery, Bootstrap, Angular, Polymer, and yes, even React. Some people prefer to combine only the functions they need, rather than include an all-in-one dependency.
It really depends on the library. Some libraries are small but poorly written and some are brilliantly well thought out.
For better or for worse, code size is one of the easiest metric to measure, and typically the first thing that will be targeted when a niche reaches a certain level of saturation.
In Javascript in particular, the micro trend is largely a pushback against major frameworks' tendency to be bloated (Angular, Ember and even React - given its scope)
For better or for worse, code size is one of the easiest metric to measure, and typically the first thing that will be targeted when a niche reaches a certain level of saturation.
In Javascript in particular, the micro trend is largely a pushback against major frameworks' tendency to be bloated (Angular, Ember and even React - given its scope)