[shadowmint]

> All other things being equal...

...but they're not. Perhaps one time in 50 you'll find a topic so well worn that you have choices between multiple mature, stable libraries with good APIs that lets you dig into the source code to see how nice it is (by whatever metric) to decide if you want to use it.

Perhaps what, json parsers?

I can barely think of any other examples.

It's a completely pointless metric.

The beauty of the API is far more important than looking into the implementation to see how it was written.

Heck, the library could be one giant regex on one line, but if the api is:

    void *libfoo_random_meaningless_name(void *n, ...);

...there's no way you'd want to touch that library.

I very much doubt the elegance of the implementation is a metric that should be used to pick a library; there are far more important metrics to look at.

[aaroniba]

I agree there are many considerations when choosing a library, but conciseness does come up. For example, I was recently impressed with how concise http-kit is. The author seems proud of it too:

http://www.http-kit.org/http-kit-clean-small.html

You and I probably just have different values on this matter. Your comment implies that conciseness is merely "nice", so I'm guessing you just don't value that aspect of code as highly as I do.

[shadowmint]

We'll have to just disagree.

I place zero value on the detail of the implementation of a library; only on the API that I use.

It's like picking a radio at the shop by opening each of them up and inspecting the quality of soldering and board schematics.

...yes, you'll get a better radio if you do, but if you're furnishing a kitchen, you'll spend the rest of the month opening appliances and looking inside them instead of building your kitchen.

I guess it depends what you're doing.

/shrug