A critique of package managers

"When using Go for example, you don’t need any third-party libraries to make a web server, Go has it all there and you are done."

Fine, now what if you need to connect to a database, or parse a PDF, or talk to a grpc backend. What a hilariously short-sighted example.

To me, this whole article just screams inexperience.

The Author isn't arguing for not using third party dependencies. He's arguing for developers to be more conscious of the dependencies they use, by manually vetting and handling them. That screams "I've been down the package manager route and paid the price". Not inexperience.

But titled the post "package managers are evil"

> The term “evil” is being used partially hyperbolic to make a point.

Kind of bonkers this even needs to be said, and even then it's missed/ignored.

The title is provocative and attention grabbing. -- It's completely fair game to react to the provocation rather than the substance of the article itself. (Or, rather, it's silly to use attention grabbing rhetoric, then complain that people paid attention to the rhetoric).

I'd prefer instead a more balanced title like "Remember to Consider the Costs When Using Package Managers", or whatever.

> It's completely fair game to react to the provocation rather than the substance of the article itself.

Yeah, but its down right stupid to do so.

The title isn't even misleading or part of a Motte-and-bailey argument.

People just hear "Package Managers are Evil" and assume that the author means you shouldn't use third party dependencies. Which is NOT what's being argued.

But I guess you'd know that, if you read passed the title.

Sorry but I lack any respect for authors that use clickbaits. Call them put and move on seem the best approach.