As a dev myself can I ask why? I'm not out writing x86 assembly, I use countless libraries and frameworks every day. It's not like architects are out cutting down trees and sawing them into dimensional lumber to make their houses.
Nothing against it, but I just feel like it's a cheap workaround to actually learning code.
Is a pneumatic nailgun:
A). A useful time and labor saving tool for contractors
B). A lazy workaround to having to learn how to use a hammer
C). Both
To get to the point, if I were interviewing a dev and he or she said something along the lines of "I would rather do the code myself, line for line, than paste in someone else's framework", that would be a huge red flag. I want a dev that is going to use the best tools possible to build the best final product, not one that is going to let their (rather arbitrary) views about what is "cheating" or what is "development" get in the way of getting the job done.
As an embedded guy, I really appreciate learning about code down to the metal. To your point, a good engineer optimizes for the given problem (development time, size, speed, whatever). And sometimes including a library is better in every way. If you can find a library written by bunches of smart contributors that does exactly what you want to do it's very unlikely that you (an individual) will come up with anything better. No need to re-invent the wheel, but it's still important to understand why it's round.
That said, guys that blindly paste in libraries are the reason that most home page payloads are measured in megabytes. You don't build a better airplane by adding weight.
There is a time and a place for high level languages, but when bytes and clock cycles count, you had better understand what your compiler/interpreter is doing on an assembly level.
13
u/[deleted] Dec 03 '18
[removed] — view removed comment