A reoccurring theme on the Emacs forums is that it’s somehow a good thing to have a minimal configuration and by implication that having a small number of packages is also a good thing. Arguments can be made that a large number of packages can increase load times and memory usage but most of the arguments I see take the position that a small number of packages is an intrinsically a good thing.
Sludgefrog over at the Emacs subreddit makes the argument explicitly. It is, he says, better to write your own extensions instead of adding a package. Even sludgefrog admits that sometimes—when implementing a major mode, for example—a package is the right answer but thinks writing your own extensions is preferable.
There’s a point to made in his favor. In the open software realm—if not in the Emacs world—there are lots of libraries full of trivial functions that are easily implemented in a line or two. That can and has caused problems when the author withdraws the software or a library gets contaminated with malware. That, of course, is the theme of this famous xkcd comic. To some extent those problems are unavoidable but why subject yourself to them to get access to a trivial function?
On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with using a package even if you could write the code yourself. We only have so many cycles, after all, so in the absence of other considerations, why spend them solving a problem that’s already solved?
The comments mostly take the middle ground that I’ve outlined: sure, write short fixes or functions but use packages for more complicated things unless you want to solve the problem yourself for educational purposes.
Of course, as always Emacs lets you have it your way. You can—more or less—use only packages or you can write everything yourself. Or you can, like most of us, mix strategies and do whatever is convenient in a particular case.