3 ms·
Yes, you could painstakingly evaluate, test and use individual libraries for all those tasks, and then manually write the glue to make them work together, and w
by petepete 9y ago
Yes, you could painstakingly evaluate, test and use individual libraries for all those tasks, and then manually write the glue to make them work together, and when the time comes spend additional time ensuring that when upgrades are applied everything still works nicely together.
Or you could use Rails.
- smt88 9y agoThe time you spend "painstakingly" evaluating and testing libraries is much, much less than the time spent painstakingly trying to do something in the way that the framework forces you to do it. Using a framework is optimizing for the first few months of development and shooting yourself in the foot later on. That especially includes the time spent either finding devs who are very competent with the framework or training someone. If you just use libraries properly, you can hire anyone (even someone who doesn't know the language at all) and just throw them into the code base. They can follow the code and actually understand it without googling every 2 minutes. There's no magic. Have you tried both approaches long-term on multiple projects? If you haven't, how can you know that frameworkless is more work?
- petepete 9y agoI've written many projects frameworkless, my current project included. I love the extra flexibility it gives and that I only add what I need. It's not a black and white issue. Not all from are as magic as you say, and if they were such a pain they wouldn't be in such demand. For most people they provide a helping hand. You might be expert enough not to need one but most people, myself included, quite like having the foundations laid and just concentrating on functionality.