Why the very sole existance of clsx hurts me so much. classnames was already tiny popular package. Why would someone decide to develop own package instead. Now if you aim to use it (for whatever reason, 200b is literally nothing), your poor devs (current and the future ones) will have to spend some time going to the docs of clsx to check any API differences with classnames. If it's the same API – even more confusing. Why create a new Open Source package when you can contribute to already existing one?
clsx is fully compatible with classnames. Yeah, I don't quite understand what was going on here - sometimes it's maintainers that are attached to their solutions and look down on some contributions fundamentally changing it. Anyways, here's where we are - we have two competing, popular packages doing the same thing and being mutually compatible - so my pick is the one that's both faster and smaller.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Why the very sole existance of
clsxhurts me so much.classnameswas already tiny popular package. Why would someone decide to develop own package instead. Now if you aim to use it (for whatever reason, 200b is literally nothing), your poor devs (current and the future ones) will have to spend some time going to the docs ofclsxto check any API differences withclassnames. If it's the same API – even more confusing. Why create a new Open Source package when you can contribute to already existing one?clsxis fully compatible withclassnames. Yeah, I don't quite understand what was going on here - sometimes it's maintainers that are attached to their solutions and look down on some contributions fundamentally changing it. Anyways, here's where we are - we have two competing, popular packages doing the same thing and being mutually compatible - so my pick is the one that's both faster and smaller.