3 ms·
Most frameworks aren't, at least not in the literal sense. By definition a framework is mostly transparent. You can see through it, look at it and think "whoa,
by choeger 6y ago
Most frameworks aren't, at least not in the literal sense.
By definition a framework is mostly transparent. You can see through it, look at it and think "whoa, I am glad that it is already there" or you can conclude "hmm, I think this part over there will not allow me to do that. I might need a different shape of framework or maybe even build it myself."
Most so-called frameworks hide the complexity and do not explain their architectural choices. In consequence, you end up with suboptimal applications quite regularly. They do this by mixing useful tools instead of providing orthogonal features, for instance a specific language for writing templates tangled together with a MVC base.
- stdbrouw 6y agoThat sounds like a cute analogy, but even though the wooden framework of a house is mostly see-through and somewhat modular, it would actually be quite cumbersome and effortful to say "okay, but for this particular wall I'm going to do something entirely different", and if you do, then it might turn out that some of the other things you'd like to have on top of it, say, insulation or drywall, no longer fit very well or no longer do their job as intended. In that sense, the word "framework" in programming actually maps quite nicely to the original meaning of the term.