3 ms·
I'd strongly disagree with the idea that we need or even want one ring to rule them all. Remember different frameworks are designed to solve different problems
by jonesb6 11y ago
I'd strongly disagree with the idea that we need or even want one ring to rule them all. Remember different frameworks are designed to solve different problems in different ways [1][2]. Anyone who has dug deep enough into a framework or tool-set will be able to write out a very long list of unique quarks, gotchas, caveats, hidden strengths/weaknesses, and what have you. It's those differences that will make one framework more valuable in a given domain then the other, we want that because there are many, many, domains to conquer in software engineering.
IMO, innovation stops when we believe we've found "the best way of doing things". I'm all excited to check out Meteor too, but I'm not getting in line at the Apple store, I mean full-stack framework store, on the day of release to be a guinea pig for the "new best thing" at my personal expense (time).
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Django_(web_framework)
- kevan 11y agoWhat if we replace "best" with "good enough for most common uses"? Most of the roads and bridges we build today aren't pinnacles of innovation, they're just good enough that we don't bother optimizing them much more. With how young the software engineering field is I don't think we'll get to this point in the near future, but part of me looks forward to a day when we have widely accepted standard solutions to common problems that don't go out of style for decades.
- jonesb6 11y agoI think there is a difference between "just good enough" and "has reached maximum efficiency". I think a lot of people want to settle at the first one, yet I see the second one nowhere in sight.