4 ms·

Is it me or is the author confused about the distinction between a library and a framework? To me, a framework implies inversion of control: you don't call th

Is it me or is the author confused about the distinction between a library and a framework? To me, a framework implies inversion of control: you don't call the framework's code; the framework's code calls your code. Granted, he skirts the issue with phrases like "A framework is a system that helps you build software, but at the same time it forces you to work within the limitations and restrictions of the framework itself", but this describes what a framework achieves, not what it is. Call me pedantic, but this I find this indicative of poor understanding, and this article raises a number of red flags along these lines, such as this gem: >PHP on the other hand was created from the beginning by Rasmus Lerdorf as a set of tools written in C that would enable you to easily and quickly develop dynamic HTML. As such PHP was, and still is, a framework in and of itself. Uh... what? Maybe I'm overstepping my bounds, but this article is furthering certain stereotypes about PHP-programmers.

andyfleming 10y ago
No, you are correct. Most developers today would understand a framework includes your code, as where with libraries, your code includes them.
- nilved 10y ago
  I think that's generally a good heuristic but fails in a lot of cases. The distinction between frameworks and libraries is murky and mostly semantic.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    I don't think it's murky, I think it's contextual. Code can be used as a library (i.e.: I call it), or code can be used as a framework (i.e.: it calls me). Some code can be used either way. Sure it's semantic, but meaning is rather important...
ownagefool 10y ago
> Maybe I'm overstepping my bounds, but this article is furthering certain stereotypes about PHP-programmers. You probably are. You'd make a better case if you were actually discussing http://www.phptherightway.com/ http://www.phptherightway.com/.
Fuxy 10y ago
I kind of get what he is saying but he is saying it very badly I believe Jeffrey Way the same things a lot better. Yes you don't need a framework all the time you don't need to do OOP all the time or follow design patterns all the time but the cases in which you don't need to do that are edge cases that very few programmers run into. Also if you think PHP is a framework then it must be the worst framework ever designed. Libraries exist precisely because they were required to smooth out the inconsistencies and insanities of the underlying language tools. A framework is just a collection of libraries wove together with some sane default ways of doing things. Some even allow you take them apart and customize them but they give you a good starting point. If the way the framework does things is not good for your requirements you can try another and only if you are absolutely certain none of them do the job should you roll your own because once you do the barrier to entry for someone new to the code base will be that much higher. The only thing I do agree with is that security should be a consideration in the development process but here we get back to the fact that a tried and tested framework has already dealt with the most common security issues and as long as you don't do something stupid in your own code you should be OK.
- omginternets 10y ago
  I agree that OOP and frameworks aren't necessary in principle. I vehemently disagree with the notion that they aren't needed in practice for PHP. I further contend that a PHP programmer advocating against the use of frameworks who doesn't show a clear understanding of what they actually are is not to be trusted. I even go out on a limb to claim that this is representative of the ills of the PHP community at large. That last part, I willingly concede, is debatable and ultimately beside the point :) To return to the crux of the argument -- that frameworks are not necessary in principle -- I would like to add that this assumes a well-designed standard library. I don't use frameworks with Go, but I sure as hell use them with PHP because the latter is an absolute minefield. That someone advocating pragmatism would miss this point is astounding. My jaw has dropped and shattered to the floor. How can you rail against principled approaches to software design (a strange position to take, independently of the current debate) only to get hung up on the theoretical feasibility of writing PHP without a framework?! It's further bewildering that the author would advocate a pragmatic approach to building software, yet neglect that frameworks offer a pragmatic solution to the security concerns that plague PHP. It's almost as if he doesn't understand the terms he's using!
jrochkind1 10y ago
> Is it me or is the author confused about the distinction between a library and a framework? I don't think so. I agree with your distinction between a library and framework. I think he is talking about frameworks like he says, and his criticisms are indeed applicable to frameworks. I think he accurately identifies some of the pitfalls of framework use, but there are pitfalls of non-framework use too, some identified in this thread, which can be just as bad or worse. With a good framework in skilled hands, I'd rather have the framework. Depending on what I'm doing. For some things I might might use Sinatra for in ruby, I might just use straight PHP. Maybe. For things I'd use Rails for in ruby -- I'd use a framework in PHP too.

andyfleming 10y ago

No, you are correct. Most developers today would understand a framework includes your code, as where with libraries, your code includes them.

nilved 10y ago
I think that's generally a good heuristic but fails in a lot of cases. The distinction between frameworks and libraries is murky and mostly semantic.
- omginternets 10y ago
  I don't think it's murky, I think it's contextual. Code can be used as a library (i.e.: I call it), or code can be used as a framework (i.e.: it calls me). Some code can be used either way. Sure it's semantic, but meaning is rather important...

ownagefool 10y ago

> Maybe I'm overstepping my bounds, but this article is furthering certain stereotypes about PHP-programmers. You probably are. You'd make a better case if you were actually discussing http://www.phptherightway.com/ http://www.phptherightway.com/.

Fuxy 10y ago

I kind of get what he is saying but he is saying it very badly I believe Jeffrey Way the same things a lot better. Yes you don't need a framework all the time you don't need to do OOP all the time or follow design patterns all the time but the cases in which you don't need to do that are edge cases that very few programmers run into. Also if you think PHP is a framework then it must be the worst framework ever designed. Libraries exist precisely because they were required to smooth out the inconsistencies and insanities of the underlying language tools. A framework is just a collection of libraries wove together with some sane default ways of doing things. Some even allow you take them apart and customize them but they give you a good starting point. If the way the framework does things is not good for your requirements you can try another and only if you are absolutely certain none of them do the job should you roll your own because once you do the barrier to entry for someone new to the code base will be that much higher. The only thing I do agree with is that security should be a consideration in the development process but here we get back to the fact that a tried and tested framework has already dealt with the most common security issues and as long as you don't do something stupid in your own code you should be OK.

omginternets 10y ago
I agree that OOP and frameworks aren't necessary in principle. I vehemently disagree with the notion that they aren't needed in practice for PHP. I further contend that a PHP programmer advocating against the use of frameworks who doesn't show a clear understanding of what they actually are is not to be trusted. I even go out on a limb to claim that this is representative of the ills of the PHP community at large. That last part, I willingly concede, is debatable and ultimately beside the point :) To return to the crux of the argument -- that frameworks are not necessary in principle -- I would like to add that this assumes a well-designed standard library. I don't use frameworks with Go, but I sure as hell use them with PHP because the latter is an absolute minefield. That someone advocating pragmatism would miss this point is astounding. My jaw has dropped and shattered to the floor. How can you rail against principled approaches to software design (a strange position to take, independently of the current debate) only to get hung up on the theoretical feasibility of writing PHP without a framework?! It's further bewildering that the author would advocate a pragmatic approach to building software, yet neglect that frameworks offer a pragmatic solution to the security concerns that plague PHP. It's almost as if he doesn't understand the terms he's using!

jrochkind1 10y ago

> Is it me or is the author confused about the distinction between a library and a framework? I don't think so. I agree with your distinction between a library and framework. I think he is talking about frameworks like he says, and his criticisms are indeed applicable to frameworks. I think he accurately identifies some of the pitfalls of framework use, but there are pitfalls of non-framework use too, some identified in this thread, which can be just as bad or worse. With a good framework in skilled hands, I'd rather have the framework. Depending on what I'm doing. For some things I might might use Sinatra for in ruby, I might just use straight PHP. Maybe. For things I'd use Rails for in ruby -- I'd use a framework in PHP too.