3 ms·
i disagree with that type of rant. using a framework isn't about "making it easy" and "hiding the details". or at least, not to me. its about not having to m
by noodle 16y ago
i disagree with that type of rant. using a framework isn't about "making it easy" and "hiding the details". or at least, not to me. its about not having to mess with the details. repetitious, abstractable details waste time and energy.
its why we don't typically code in assembly. its a waste of time, and you generally have faith that whatever statement you write in, say, C gets translated correctly and efficiently down in to assembly.
- raganwald 16y agoI think it very much depends on what gets "abstracted away." If a library provides sensible defaults, or does some convention over configuration, it helps me ignore the inessential. And my knowledge is portable to other frameworks, I still understand the underlying model, I just don't have to mess with the details. In this we agree. But if a frameworks provides an abstraction that isn't isomorphic to the underlying model, I end up learning a non-portable technology that is useless when I step outside its cozy implementation. For example, ORMs that hide SQL from me. Messing with SQL syntax may be inessential, but working with actual relations is my job, and not knowing how to use a database is counter-productive. JM2C, YMMV, &c. p.s. I forgot to confess my own sins: https://github.com/unspace/faux https://github.com/unspace/faux