Why You Don’t Need That New JavaScript Library

Libraries can rise to stardom in months, only to crash and fade into obscurity within months. We’ve all seen this happen in the software development world, and my own journey has been filled with “must-have” JavaScript libraries, each claiming to be more revolutionary than the one before. 

But over the years, I’ve come to realize that the tools we need have been with us all along, and in this article, I’ll explain why it’s worth sticking to the fundamentals, how new libraries can become liabilities, and why stable, proven solutions usually serve us best in the long run.

The Allure of New Libraries

I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve been seduced by shiny new libraries before. Back in 2018, I led a team overhaul of our front-end architecture. We added a number of trendy state management tools and UI component frameworks, certain that they would streamline our workflow. Our package.json ballooned with dependencies, each seemingly indispensable.

At first, it felt like we were riding a wave of innovation. Then, about six months in, a pattern emerged. A few libraries became outdated; some were abandoned by their maintainers. Every time we audited our dependencies, it seemed we were juggling security patches and version conflicts far more often than we shipped new features.

The headache of maintenance made one thing crystal clear: every new dependency is a promise you make to maintain and update someone else’s code.

The True Cost of Dependencies

When we adopt a new library, we’re not just adding functionality; we’re also taking on significant risks. Here are just some of the hidden costs that frequently go overlooked:

Maintenance Overhead

New libraries don’t just drop into your project and remain stable forever. They require patching for security vulnerabilities, updating for compatibility with other tools, and diligence when major releases introduce breaking changes. If you’re not on top of these updates, you risk shipping insecure or buggy code to production.

Version Conflicts

Even robust tools like npm and yarn can’t guarantee complete harmony among your dependencies. One library might require a specific version of a package that conflicts with another library’s requirements. Resolving these inconsistencies can be a maddening, time-consuming process.

Performance Implications

The size of the bundle increases a lot because of front-end libraries. One specialized library may add tens or hundreds of kilobytes to your final JavaScript payload, making it heavier, which means slower load times and worse user experiences.

Security Vulnerabilities

In one audit for a client recently, 60% of their app’s vulnerabilities came from third-party packages, often many layers deep in the dependency tree. Sometimes, to patch one library, multiple interdependent packages need to be updated, which is rarely an easy process.

A colleague and I once had a need for a date picker for a project. The hip thing to do would have been to install some feature-rich library and quickly drop it in. Instead, we polyfilled our own lightweight date picker in vanilla JavaScript, using the native Date object. It was a fraction of the size, had zero external dependencies, and was completely ours to modify. That tiny decision spared us from possible library update headaches, conflicts, or abandonment issues months later.

The Power of Vanilla JavaScript

Modern JavaScript is almost unrecognizable from what it was ten years ago. Many features that previously required libraries like Lodash or Moment are now part of the language — or can be replicated with a few lines of code. For example:

// Instead of installing Lodash to remove duplicates:

const uniqueItems = [...new Set(items)];



// Instead of using a library for deep cloning:

const clonedObject = structuredClone(complexObject);

A deep familiarity with the standard library can frequently replace entire suites of utility functions. These days, JavaScript’s built-in methods handle most common tasks elegantly, making large chunks of external code unnecessary.

When to Use External Libraries

None of this is to say you should never install a third-party package. The key lies in discernment — knowing when a problem is big enough or specialized enough to benefit from a well-tested, well-maintained library. For instance:

• Critical complexity: Frameworks like React have proven their mettle for managing complex UI states in large-scale applications.
• Time-to-market: Sometimes, a short-term deliverable calls for a robust, out-of-the-box solution, and it makes sense to bring in a trusted library rather than build everything from scratch.
• Community and maintenance: Popular libraries with long track records and active contributor communities — like D3.js for data visualization — can be safer bets, especially if they’re solving well-understood problems.

The key is to evaluate the cost-benefit ratio:

1. Can this be done with native APIs or a small custom script?
2. Do I trust this library’s maintainer track record?
3. Is it solving a core problem or offering only minor convenience?
4. Will my team actually use enough of its features to justify the extra weight?

Strategies for Avoiding Unnecessary Dependencies

To keep your projects lean and maintainable, here are a few best practices:

1. Evaluate Built-In Methods First

You’d be surprised how many tasks modern JavaScript can handle without third-party code. Spend time exploring the newer ES features, such as array methods, Map/Set, async/await, and the Intl API for localization.

2. Document Your Choices

If you do bring in a new library, record your reasoning in a few sentences. State the problem it solves, the alternatives you considered, and any trade-offs. Future maintainers (including your future self) will appreciate the context if questions arise later.

3. Regular Dependency Audits

Re-scan your package.json every quarter or so. Is this library still maintained? Are you really using their features? Do a small cleanup of the project for removing dead weights that would reduce the potential for security flaws.

4. Aggressive Dependency vs. DevDependency Separation

Throw build tooling, testing frameworks, other non-production packages into your devDependencies. Keep your production dependency listing lean in terms of just the things that you really need to function at runtime.

The Case for Core Libraries

A team I recently worked with had some advanced charting and visualization requirements. Although a newer charting library promised flashy animations and out-of-the-box UI components, we decided to use D3.js, a stalwart in the data visualization space. The maturity of the library, thorough documentation, and huge community made it a stable foundation for our custom charts. By building directly on top of D3’s fundamentals, we had full control over our final visualizations, avoiding the limitations of less established abstractions.

That mindset — paying off in performance, maintainability, and peace of mind for embracing a core, proven library rather than chasing every new offering — means instead of spending time adapting our data to a proprietary system or debugging half-baked features, we have to focus on real product needs, confident that D3 would remain stable and well-supported.

Performance Gains

Libraries aren’t just maintenance overhead, they affect your app’s performance too. In one recent project, we reduced the initial bundle size by 60% simply by removing niche libraries and replacing them with native code. The numbers told the story.

• Load time dropped from 3.2s to 1.4s.
• Time to interact improved by nearly half.
• Memory usage fell by roughly 30%.

These results didn’t come from advanced optimizations but from the simpler act of removing unnecessary dependencies. In an age of ever-growing user expectations, the performance benefits alone can justify a more minimal approach.

Building for the Long Term

Software is never static. Today’s must-have library may turn out to be tomorrow’s orphaned repository. Reliable, stable code tends to come from developers who favor well-understood, minimal solutions over ones that rely too heavily on external, fast-moving packages.

Take authentication, for example: with the hundreds of packages that exist to handle user login flows, rolling a simple system with few dependencies may result in something easier to audit, more transparent, and less subject to churn from external libraries. The code might be a bit more verbose, but it’s also explicit, predictable, and directly under your control.

Teaching and Team Growth

One of the underrated benefits of using fewer libraries is how it fosters stronger problem-solving skills within your team. Having to implement features themselves forces the developers to have a deep understanding of core concepts-which pays dividends when debugging, performance tuning, or even evaluating new technologies in the future. Relying too much on abstractions from someone else can stunt that growth and transform capable coders into “framework operators.”

Conclusion

The next time you think about installing yet another trending package, reflect on whether it solves your pressing need or just for novelty. As experience has drummed into my head, each new dependency is for life. This is the way to ensure that one gets light solutions that are secure and easier to maintain by using built-in capabilities, well-tried libraries, and a deep understanding of fundamentals.

Ultimately, “boring” but reliable libraries — and sometimes just vanilla JavaScript — tend to stand the test of time better than flashy newcomers. Balancing innovation with pragmatism is the hallmark of a seasoned developer. In an era of endless frameworks and packages, recognizing when you can simply reach for the tools you already have may be the most valuable skill of all.