Craig Dazey

This is definitely an issue, but not an easy one to tackle. To start, the guidelines definitely recommend against what we're currently doing in Nostrum, but I also don't think...

> This is exactly what needs to change for #317 that makes this issue a requirement. Yep! I totally get it. I think it's a good idea we should move...

> Imo, imposing +1 thing to their supervision tree is not something worth fretting about. Definitely not, I think it could be assuaged entirely just by having a good example!

Yes, Nostrum currently uses a `ConsumerSupervisor` so every event is handled in its own process. As @khionu said, I think the biggest issue here is trying to maintain some semblance...

Thanks for the report! I'm partial to the second option - moving away from `Jason.decode!/2` and using the non-banged version. I'm not sure what the flow for this would look...

Thanks for opening this up! Sorry, but this will be a bit of a read. 🙃 I completely agree that reading from a config file is generally not a good...

The `dev: true` option is solely for if you want to run nostrum as it's own application. If you do not want to supply a token in the test environment...

I'm okay with either approach. It seems like the more idiomatic approach would be to make them optional in the dependency but 🤷

I think a solution that covers both would probably be the best option, right? I can't back this up with data, but I feel like the most common use case...

Yes, I believe that would be sufficient. Thanks!