[andrezsanchez]

I've tended to avoid both underscore and lodash because they're both in the slew of monolithic pre-npm libraries, however the lazy evaluation looks interesting. I wouldn't be surprised to find a library that handles lazy eval without all the extra features Lodash brings.

[jgalt212]

For the shops who don't live and breath js and whose js work is almost entirely browser-based, these monoliths are great. I, for one, am bummed that the js market is moving away from monoliths. e.g. YUI shutting down.

[andrezsanchez]

That's an interesting perspective. I don't have any inherent problems with large libraries, but my problem with some of these 'monoliths' is that other libraries start to depend on the entire library when they only need a small piece of functionality that the library provides.

Substack wrote an article [1] explaining some of the problems that monolithic libraries cause in an ecosystem.

[1] http://substack.net/many_things

[jgalt212]

thanks, I'll check that out.

[WickyNilliams]

With browserify (or webpack) you can require just the functions you want, and only those (and their dependencies) end up in your code base. This is covered in the changelog

[acjohnson55]

There is lazy.js (http://danieltao.com/lazy.js/). Also, lodash is highly factored into pieces if you don't want the whole thing.

[jdd]

lodash offers modules for node, es6, amd, individual npm packages and bundled in the primary npm package so you can even do require('lodash/array/chunk').

[andrezsanchez]

I remember trying this a while ago and being disappointed at the amount of dependency code brought in for a rather trivial function, but the modularization is looking much better than it was last time I took a look.