3 ms·

Sounds to me like "Real programmers don't use a high-level language" or "Real programmers use Assembly". Steve Yegge had the best story in this regard. His old

Sounds to me like "Real programmers don't use a high-level language" or "Real programmers use Assembly". Steve Yegge had the best story in this regard. His old company built mobile software in assembly. The app was huge - like several million lines of code - but they were convinced it must be fast, because it was in assembly. But then Microsoft came out with a competitor, written in a higher-level language, that was way faster. Why? The assembly app was full of inefficiencies that they couldn't see because they were working at such a low level. Frameworks aren't about "lowering the barriers of entry to programming". They're about allowing a developer to focus on what's new and original and important, and not worry about things that have already been solved a thousand times. They're just libraries! Why rewrite an email sending library or a unit testing library or a database connection library for every app? Or deployment automation, or ORM, or web request handling, etc. Arrange a few of these and you've got a framework. If your framework isn't responsive, stable, and simple, then you need a different framework, not no framework.

fauigerzigerk 18y ago
Frameworks are not simply libraries and I think that's one of the more valid criticisms of frameworks. Frameworks call you. You don't just call them as you would call any other library function. That means they provide the glue code, not you. They structure the application, not you. The difference between libraries and frameworks isn't allways clear cut, but try to combine multiple frameworks in one application and you'll quickly see what I mean. Frameworks create a lot of dependencies. In a way that is what makes them useful, because a dependency is a decision you don't have to make. The general principle is this: Frameworks make you work if you want to diverge from the defaults. Apps combining multiple libraries make you work to define the defaults. Which one causes more work depends on how unique your application is. If you're a consultant who creates one middle of the road app every three months, frameworks are perfect for you. If you are a startup founder with some confidence in the future and uniqueness of your app, frameworks may not be the best choice.

fauigerzigerk 18y ago

Frameworks are not simply libraries and I think that's one of the more valid criticisms of frameworks. Frameworks call you. You don't just call them as you would call any other library function. That means they provide the glue code, not you. They structure the application, not you. The difference between libraries and frameworks isn't allways clear cut, but try to combine multiple frameworks in one application and you'll quickly see what I mean. Frameworks create a lot of dependencies. In a way that is what makes them useful, because a dependency is a decision you don't have to make. The general principle is this: Frameworks make you work if you want to diverge from the defaults. Apps combining multiple libraries make you work to define the defaults. Which one causes more work depends on how unique your application is. If you're a consultant who creates one middle of the road app every three months, frameworks are perfect for you. If you are a startup founder with some confidence in the future and uniqueness of your app, frameworks may not be the best choice.