Developers can take care of their setup manually, users often just screw up their setup with options they don't understand.
The load time argument is mostly bogus, it doesn't have a significant influence as none of the code of the duplicate libraries is executed - assuming those libraries are written properly to bail out early
1. Well, as others pointed out, it does influence the load time, since it has nothing to do with execution time. Maybe I even perform a benchmark tests and post some actual times compared...
2. True that developers setup manually, but nolib is very comfortable.
3. Claim "users can screw up" is universal for so much things... I believe that this option is already disabled by default in Curse Client, so I see no problem with this.
4. In any case, it should be either official Curse decision to remove this feature (which would be really bad call IMHO) or keep it. And if the official position is to keep it, the inability to upload this manually is definitely kind of a bug. So how can we ask the developers to tend to it? Is this forum the right place?
Why? Can you please explain?
I do see it good for two reasons:
1. It significantly improves UI load time.
2. For me as a developer, it is much easier to work when I have one copy of library around instead of say 30!
Currently, Curse does not handle -nolib versions for manually uploaded files but only for files produced by the automatic packager. In case of manual upload Curse Client installs the latest file uploaded no matter what.