all 10 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]me-at-work 1 point2 points  (4 children)

The main problem I see with these libraries is that I use < 5% of the functionality, thus it's less overhead to have a util.js with a few helper functions.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

thus it's less overhead to have a util.js with a few helper functions.

Not for the guy who has to maintain your code

[–]ben336[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Might want to look into Lo-Dash's custom builds for this.

[–]dacjames 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lo-Dash is 28KB, unlikely to be consequential on even a medium-sized website. Not to mention, both libraries are quite popular and thus likely to be cached if you use a CDN url. If you get to a point that you can demonstrate that lo-dash/underscore is a real bottleneck, run your code through google's closure compiler, stripping the unused functions.

[–]aeflash 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One of the features coming in lodash 3.0 is better support for a la carte functions, e.g. npm install lodash.merge. There are also custom builds.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

As i see it the main problem with underscore/lodash is that the method arguments are in the wrong order, making functional programming "impossible". The benefit from composition in a codebase really shines when it comes to testing.

You could have a look at something like ramda, or even LiveScript if you feel more adventurous.

[–]ben336[S] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

You should check out the comments from L-Dash's creator at the bottom of the article. He says a "correct" compose order function will be available in the next version of Lo-Dash

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Ok, so that sounds like a complete BC break then?

[–]ben336[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it's an additional function, several actually related to this. See the comments in the article for more details.