>What type of developer chooses UX and performance over security? So reckless.

Initially I assumed this is sarcastic, but apparently not. UX and performance is what programmers are paid to do! Making sure UX is good is one of the most important things in programmer job.

While security is a moving target, a goal, something that can never be perfect, just "good enough" (if NSA wants to hack you, they will). You make it sound like installing third party packages is basically equivalent to a security hole, while in practice the risk is low, especially if you don't overdo it.

Wild to read extreme security views like that, while at the same time there are people here that run unconstrained AI agents with --dangerous-skip-confirm flags and see nothing wrong with it.

Better developer UX can directly lead to better safety. "You are holding it wrong" is a frequent source of security bugs, and better UX reduces the ways you can hold it wrong, or at least makes you more likely to hold it the right way

"Security" is often more about corporate CYA than improving my actual security as a user, and sometimes in opposition, and there is often blatant disregard for any UX concession at all. The most secure system is fully encrypted with all copies of the encryption key erased.

Personally I've heard Odin [1] to do a decent job with this, at least from what I've superficially learned about its stdlib and included modules as an "outsider" (not a regular user). It appears to have things like support for e.g. image file formats built-in, and new things are somewhat liberally getting added to core if they prove practically useful, since there isn't a package manager in the traditional sense. Here's a blog post by the language author literally named "Package Managers are Evil" [2]

(Please do correct me if this is wrong, again, I don't have the experience myself.)

[1] https://pkg.odin-lang.org/

[2] https://www.gingerbill.org/article/2025/09/08/package-manage...