I don't know if I would characterize NaCl as "enormous". TweetNaCl is literally two files. Libsodium has a bigger footprint, but it also seems to have bindings for pretty much every language. I would think it's pretty easy to integrate.

I definitely do not think the proliferation of unvetted, anonymous crypto libraries is a good thing. How many people have the expertise to write this kind of thing? How many have the expertise to evaluate its quality?

For example, the documentation for the linked library says: "we've also added integrity checking in the form of a SHA 256 hash." This is a huge red flag: hashes provide integrity, but not authenticity, which is really what you want here. But then you go and look at the source code and find that they are actually using HMAC-SHA256, which does provide authenticity. So the documentation is not an accurate description of what's going on, and you need to go and look at the source to find out that it really is okay (in this particular aspect, though it doesn't inspire confidence for the future).

My point is not to say that this particular library is terrible or anything. Just that we have limited resources, and we're better off consolidating to a very small number of solutions designed, written, and validated by experts.

Please don't use this library. Nacl is much safer, and in fact smaller.

If you're worried about size, use Tweetnacl:

TweetNaCl is the world's first auditable high-security cryptographic library. TweetNaCl fits into just 100 tweets while supporting all 25 of the C NaCl functions used by applications. TweetNaCl is a self-contained public-domain C library, so it can easily be integrated into applications.

What do you mean enormous dependencies? NaCl is fast, lightweight, and standalone. Libsodium has more features, but is portable and easier to use.

It should probably have a big fat "I wrote this to learn, it's probably not secure" banner at the top of the readme.

You won't be disappointed.