Ive done this before, I have used a bespoke micro framework to build a webpage. A couple of years later I wanted to update it, but discovered that I couldnt do it because of a bug in this framework and the framework also didnt exist anymore. I could fix the bug myself by reading all their code, or I could start over and use something that would still exist next year.
Also, have you read the dagger.js code? https://github.com/dagger8224/dagger.js/blob/main/src/dagger...
Its written like the developer has a limited supply of lines of code. No comments, ton of declarations on the same line, and lines that run longer than most widescreen monitors.
Its all super compact and dense. I would not want to try to fix a bug here.
Suggestion: Add a build step that runs before your code is published to npm so that you can have readable source AND small source.
>Also, have you read the dagger.js code? https://github.com/dagger8224/dagger.js/blob/main/src/dagger...
It's 1600 lines.
I've disassembled, decompiled and reverse engineered more code than that in a day. It's JavaScript. What comments do you need? There's a bit of noise in the first 100 lines, but it's not something you couldn't figure out in half an hour if need be.
The version you linked isn't the minified version.
Edit: and yes, I did see the code before I wrote my first comment. I wanted to make sure it was in fact relatively straightforward and not some 50k line monolith.
Yes, there are places to find worse code, but this isn't what I would call clean, readable code.
Some of it feels like it was written with the goal of not pressing enter. Can I read it and debug it? Certainly. Do I want to? Certainly not.