3 ms·

Yes, a house frame is closer conceptually to a software framework than a hammer, but I don't think that's relevant and would only undermine the rhetorical effec

Yes, a house frame is closer conceptually to a software framework than a hammer, but I don't think that's relevant and would only undermine the rhetorical effectiveness of the analogy. The purpose of an analogy is fundamentally to describe some unknown thing (the subject) by comparing it with a different, known thing (the analog) that shares a common attribute with the unknown thing. The value in the analog is not in how many attributes it shares with the subject, but in how salient it makes the particular attribute you wish to highlight. Consider when a boxer is described as having a "glass jaw". Here, the subject is the boxer's jaw, and the analog is the material glass. It would be pointless to complain the analogy is a bad analogy on account of the fact that glass is translucent whereas the human jaw is not. The point of analogy is to highlight that the boxer is vulnerable to impacts to his jaw. The value of using glass as the analog is the readiness with which we can conjure the mental image of glass breaking; the translucency is irrelevant. Likewise, the point of this analogy about hammers and frameworks is that the author wanted something simple that would just work, and what he got was an over-engineered mess that requires considerable yak-shaving to get it to work. The fact that a hammer is more like a library than a framework is irrelevant, the point is that a hammer is something simple and familiar.

Cederfjard 5y ago
Thank you, I appreciate this. It drives me crazy when someone dismisses an analogy because some other attribute than what’s actually being compared doesn’t match. Yes, you’re right, they’re not the same! If what you compared were exactly the same in every way, they would be the same thing! I think it’s part dishonesty, part emotional attachment to the things being compared (you should probably rarely bring Hitler into the mix, even if technically it works), and partly that some people just don’t understand analogies.
- lliamander 5y ago
  I think it's partly that it is easy, especially for technical people, to get hung up on details. And there is a good reason for this. It is often the case, especially with very technical topics, that the use of analogies can actually hinder understanding, because of the tendency to take the analogy too far[1]. Usually you just have to communicate a bit more on what the scope of the analogy is, and then it will make sense. There's also a subjective element in terms of what analog will be salient. Using the phrase "glass jaw" isn't going to have the same effect for someone who first thinks of Pyrex or bullet-proof glass. > Yes, you’re right, they’re not the same! If what you compared were exactly the same in every way, they would be the same thing! LOL! I've had that conversation almost word-for-word. [1]https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuition-and-the-monad-tutorial-fallacy/ https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuiti...
  - conductr 5y ago
    I remember the first time I heard the phrase “glass jaw”, by then I was early college age and it pretty much just made sense without requiring much thought. The only context I needed was that it’s a boxing term. If I contrast that with the difficulty I had understanding the hammer factory analogy having just read the linked article , I’d say there is some value in creating better analogies. Not all analogies are made equal. That said, I finished the article and didn’t feel completely connected with the analogy other than, true frameworks do make me jump through a bunch of hoops sometimes. Is that what he means with this analogy? If an analogy is a tool to aid comprehension, or make a point, I can’t follow what this is supposed to mean. Also FWIW, glassjaw is a great band if anyone likes 00s screamo
    - Cederfjard 5y ago
      I agree, it’s of course also possible for analogies to be strained or unclear. You need to keep the audience in mind as well.
    - lliamander 5y ago
      The analogy is that the hardware store represents framework, and the hammer represents a piece of functionality the framework is supposed to provide. The point is that frameworks of the era rarely provided a simple, direct API for performing some task. Rather, there was often a whole bunch of "Abstract Factory Factory" patterns, which would require a bunch of ceremony before you actually had and object that did the work you needed to do.
ttymck 5y ago
It is still a poor analogy, and the fact that a better analogy undermines the original point should suggest that the original point is flawed. Saying "I need a hammer" and reaching for a house frame is a poor choice. Saying "I want something simple that will just work" and reaching for a framework is the root of the author's woes. They don't even explain what the specific technical grievances are, it's just one drawn out analogy. If they want a hammer to build a house, they'll need a screwdriver, and tape measure, and a table saw. They looked at a few toolkit options on the shelf, got tired of reading the instructions, and ranted. To be fair, I'm sure frameworks in 2005 _were_ cumbersome. (I'm frustrated enough using Spring in 2021, but I still recognize that it's a fully featured house frame ready to go)
- lliamander 5y ago
  The analogy just makes so much intuitive sense to me that I may be having a "curse of knowledge" thing in trying to explain it to people who don't get it. In thinking about your response I think I may not have explained the author's analogy correctly. Let me try and correct that to see if things make sense. The hammer here is not meant to be analogous to a framework. The hammer here is just supposed to be some sort of functionality provided by the framework. It is the store that is supposed to be the analog to a framework. Just like a hardware store provides tools, a framework is supposed to provide a collection of related pieces of functionality. The point the author was making was that the frameworks available at the time would never just provide you the functionality in any sort of direct way (i.e. selling you a hammer). Instead, those frameworks were all about providing users with a generic set of abstractions for building or configuring the functionality you needed (i.e. a hammer factory). Let's keep in mind that this is 2005, barely a year after the initial release of both Ruby on Rails and Maven, two pieces of software which which would later popularize the notion of "Convention over Configuration". At that point frameworks (especially Java frameworks) were generally these hideous, over-engineered, design-by-committee monstrosities. The fact that Ruby on Rails and Maven went on to be wildly successful is in fact a vindication of the point the author was making.
emodendroket 5y ago
If the analogy is misleading then it hardly seems a defense to tell me that a more accurate one would lack the same rhetorical force.

Cederfjard 5y ago

Thank you, I appreciate this. It drives me crazy when someone dismisses an analogy because some other attribute than what’s actually being compared doesn’t match. Yes, you’re right, they’re not the same! If what you compared were exactly the same in every way, they would be the same thing! I think it’s part dishonesty, part emotional attachment to the things being compared (you should probably rarely bring Hitler into the mix, even if technically it works), and partly that some people just don’t understand analogies.

lliamander 5y ago
I think it's partly that it is easy, especially for technical people, to get hung up on details. And there is a good reason for this. It is often the case, especially with very technical topics, that the use of analogies can actually hinder understanding, because of the tendency to take the analogy too far[1]. Usually you just have to communicate a bit more on what the scope of the analogy is, and then it will make sense. There's also a subjective element in terms of what analog will be salient. Using the phrase "glass jaw" isn't going to have the same effect for someone who first thinks of Pyrex or bullet-proof glass. > Yes, you’re right, they’re not the same! If what you compared were exactly the same in every way, they would be the same thing! LOL! I've had that conversation almost word-for-word. [1]https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuition-and-the-monad-tutorial-fallacy/ https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuiti...
- conductr 5y ago
  I remember the first time I heard the phrase “glass jaw”, by then I was early college age and it pretty much just made sense without requiring much thought. The only context I needed was that it’s a boxing term. If I contrast that with the difficulty I had understanding the hammer factory analogy having just read the linked article , I’d say there is some value in creating better analogies. Not all analogies are made equal. That said, I finished the article and didn’t feel completely connected with the analogy other than, true frameworks do make me jump through a bunch of hoops sometimes. Is that what he means with this analogy? If an analogy is a tool to aid comprehension, or make a point, I can’t follow what this is supposed to mean. Also FWIW, glassjaw is a great band if anyone likes 00s screamo
  - Cederfjard 5y ago
    I agree, it’s of course also possible for analogies to be strained or unclear. You need to keep the audience in mind as well.
  - lliamander 5y ago
    The analogy is that the hardware store represents framework, and the hammer represents a piece of functionality the framework is supposed to provide. The point is that frameworks of the era rarely provided a simple, direct API for performing some task. Rather, there was often a whole bunch of "Abstract Factory Factory" patterns, which would require a bunch of ceremony before you actually had and object that did the work you needed to do.

ttymck 5y ago

It is still a poor analogy, and the fact that a better analogy undermines the original point should suggest that the original point is flawed. Saying "I need a hammer" and reaching for a house frame is a poor choice. Saying "I want something simple that will just work" and reaching for a framework is the root of the author's woes. They don't even explain what the specific technical grievances are, it's just one drawn out analogy. If they want a hammer to build a house, they'll need a screwdriver, and tape measure, and a table saw. They looked at a few toolkit options on the shelf, got tired of reading the instructions, and ranted. To be fair, I'm sure frameworks in 2005 _were_ cumbersome. (I'm frustrated enough using Spring in 2021, but I still recognize that it's a fully featured house frame ready to go)

lliamander 5y ago
The analogy just makes so much intuitive sense to me that I may be having a "curse of knowledge" thing in trying to explain it to people who don't get it. In thinking about your response I think I may not have explained the author's analogy correctly. Let me try and correct that to see if things make sense. The hammer here is not meant to be analogous to a framework. The hammer here is just supposed to be some sort of functionality provided by the framework. It is the store that is supposed to be the analog to a framework. Just like a hardware store provides tools, a framework is supposed to provide a collection of related pieces of functionality. The point the author was making was that the frameworks available at the time would never just provide you the functionality in any sort of direct way (i.e. selling you a hammer). Instead, those frameworks were all about providing users with a generic set of abstractions for building or configuring the functionality you needed (i.e. a hammer factory). Let's keep in mind that this is 2005, barely a year after the initial release of both Ruby on Rails and Maven, two pieces of software which which would later popularize the notion of "Convention over Configuration". At that point frameworks (especially Java frameworks) were generally these hideous, over-engineered, design-by-committee monstrosities. The fact that Ruby on Rails and Maven went on to be wildly successful is in fact a vindication of the point the author was making.

emodendroket 5y ago

If the analogy is misleading then it hardly seems a defense to tell me that a more accurate one would lack the same rhetorical force.