4 ms·

I've been burned by so many frameworks I am hesitant to use one unless the advantage is abundantly clear. Even something as mundane as an ORM can cause massive

I've been burned by so many frameworks I am hesitant to use one unless the advantage is abundantly clear. Even something as mundane as an ORM can cause massive problems down the line if you're not careful, or you forgot to anticipate the case you need something more complicated than braindead CRUD. Frameworks force you into a paradigm. Yes, to spin up quicker, get new engineers onboarded quicker, etc a framework will do the job. But it's not a free lunch. In exchange for this you are hopelessly intertwined in the author's idea of what makes something good. You're bound to their bugs, you're bound to the nuance, and most importantly you're developing knowledge of a framework, and not what the framework does. Some major frameworks, for example React, might pass the smell test as "just use it". This is the exception and not the rule mostly guided by the fact that Javascript is the absolute hottest garbage to ever grace our unfortunate field. For some people this exchange is worth it. I'd generally recommend a company use pieces of a framework where they can. But to use a whole framework? Let's put it this way, early in my career I was involved in more old rails projects than I care to admit that were FILLED with kludges because no one could justify actually doing it right and in-housing most of it. I've been involved in projects that were hopeless dependent on the ORM-du-jour that were completely hamstrung because the ORM didn't take full advantage of the query planner, or lacked the necessary constructs for complicated queries, etc. ORMs are the worst, in my opinion, because the only other option is to then _force_ the ORM to do what you would've done originally (defeating it's purpose). General purpose web frameworks are close runners up (and related). Your 5 points are nice sounding, and you probably get a lot of CTOs and engineering directors to agree with you. However, as a man in the trenches I can't say anything but you're fortunate to never have been on something complicated enough that a framework hamstrings you. Rescuing a project from a decision made by some framework-first shortsighted genius is the reason we get paid as much as we do.

Beltalowda 4y ago
I mostly agree with this, and also with the parent poster. I've seen framework become a big problem, and I've seen shitty ad-hoc frameworks for "framework-less" applications. I've had fairly good success with what I like to call "framework libraries". That is, all or most of the functionality of a framework, but composed more as a library (or rather, a set of libraries) than a framework, giving you the best of both, mostly. ORMs are often given as an example, but I rarely found them as issue as most I've used have an "escape" to allow you to just use SQL if need be. The bigger problems with frameworks are when you want to compose some application in a way the framework doesn't really like (this can be a problem in Rails, for example). I aggressively push things to libraries whenever I work on something; sometimes they can be made public, sometimes not, but even when private it helps a lot in mentality of people, especially with certain kind of devs.
m00x 4y ago
> You're bound to their bugs If you do it yourself, you're bound to your own bugs. When they have bugs, it's fixed by a team of highly skilled contributors. Not using frameworks is just an ego problem, or a lack of skills.
- jgrpf 4y ago
  I've had a couple of cases case where a bug was not fixed in time or fixed at all which results in writing workarounds or forking which is far from an ideal solution and further reduces the advantages of using a framework.
- pydry 4y ago
  I kind of feel that people talk past each other on this issue. If you use a bad framework, no framework is vastly better. If you use a really good framework, no framework is vastly worse. From one day to the next there will probably be one or two frameworks which dominate your work. If it's really good you'll have an overall positive impression of them and vice versa.
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  I completely agree, unless you are doing something unique, low level where ie latency is the king (which most of us don't), frameworks and libraries shine for 99% of the cases. Some brilliant folks are just bored by usual rather generic work, and their idea of 'fun' is to keep reinventing the wheel that specifically fits current problem. Actual benefits to business be damned, intellectual fun is more important. Once those folks leave (and they always leave eventually), its mayhem for the remainder of the team/company. For me, this kind of 'autistic' brilliance is overall just professional incompetency that shows over long time period and I avoid hiring such folks. One can babysit them and steer them but its rarely worth it within usual teams.
  - Test0129 4y ago
    > Some brilliant folks are just bored by usual rather generic work, and their idea of 'fun' is to keep reinventing the wheel that specifically fits current problem. Actual benefits to business be damned, intellectual fun is more important. Once those folks leave (and they always leave eventually), its mayhem for the remainder of the team/company. I could write a dissertation on this statement alone. But let's use two examples. Python and Node. Both are very "never do anything yourself" languages. Lots of libraries, even more frameworks. What's the result? 1. CVEs all over that place that effect nearly anything people touch. 2. Library creep. Pulling in one library or framework pulls in the entire planet. 3. Libraries and frameworks exist for absolute trivia. Node is famous for this, including stupid packages that literally just color text (and not in a meaningful way like a logger). So in exchange for avoiding your alleged "autistic brilliance" you increase your attack surface 10 fold. I use libraries all the time, I am absolutely sure to limit their scope as much as possible. I won't use libraries for trivia, and I evaluate frameworks extremely carefully. It's kind of funny how often your opinion is parroted in startup forums but for some reason I keep making more money every year despite every signal pointing to me somehow being in the class of engineer that are, according to you, better off without a job. Companies are run by idiots. The hubris you show is the same hubris a VP of engineering shows having last programmed 10 years ago. It shows a complete lack of nuance and understanding of the engineer.

Beltalowda 4y ago

I mostly agree with this, and also with the parent poster. I've seen framework become a big problem, and I've seen shitty ad-hoc frameworks for "framework-less" applications. I've had fairly good success with what I like to call "framework libraries". That is, all or most of the functionality of a framework, but composed more as a library (or rather, a set of libraries) than a framework, giving you the best of both, mostly. ORMs are often given as an example, but I rarely found them as issue as most I've used have an "escape" to allow you to just use SQL if need be. The bigger problems with frameworks are when you want to compose some application in a way the framework doesn't really like (this can be a problem in Rails, for example). I aggressively push things to libraries whenever I work on something; sometimes they can be made public, sometimes not, but even when private it helps a lot in mentality of people, especially with certain kind of devs.

m00x 4y ago

> You're bound to their bugs If you do it yourself, you're bound to your own bugs. When they have bugs, it's fixed by a team of highly skilled contributors. Not using frameworks is just an ego problem, or a lack of skills.

jgrpf 4y ago
I've had a couple of cases case where a bug was not fixed in time or fixed at all which results in writing workarounds or forking which is far from an ideal solution and further reduces the advantages of using a framework.
pydry 4y ago
I kind of feel that people talk past each other on this issue. If you use a bad framework, no framework is vastly better. If you use a really good framework, no framework is vastly worse. From one day to the next there will probably be one or two frameworks which dominate your work. If it's really good you'll have an overall positive impression of them and vice versa.
saiya-jin 4y ago
I completely agree, unless you are doing something unique, low level where ie latency is the king (which most of us don't), frameworks and libraries shine for 99% of the cases. Some brilliant folks are just bored by usual rather generic work, and their idea of 'fun' is to keep reinventing the wheel that specifically fits current problem. Actual benefits to business be damned, intellectual fun is more important. Once those folks leave (and they always leave eventually), its mayhem for the remainder of the team/company. For me, this kind of 'autistic' brilliance is overall just professional incompetency that shows over long time period and I avoid hiring such folks. One can babysit them and steer them but its rarely worth it within usual teams.
- Test0129 4y ago
  > Some brilliant folks are just bored by usual rather generic work, and their idea of 'fun' is to keep reinventing the wheel that specifically fits current problem. Actual benefits to business be damned, intellectual fun is more important. Once those folks leave (and they always leave eventually), its mayhem for the remainder of the team/company. I could write a dissertation on this statement alone. But let's use two examples. Python and Node. Both are very "never do anything yourself" languages. Lots of libraries, even more frameworks. What's the result? 1. CVEs all over that place that effect nearly anything people touch. 2. Library creep. Pulling in one library or framework pulls in the entire planet. 3. Libraries and frameworks exist for absolute trivia. Node is famous for this, including stupid packages that literally just color text (and not in a meaningful way like a logger). So in exchange for avoiding your alleged "autistic brilliance" you increase your attack surface 10 fold. I use libraries all the time, I am absolutely sure to limit their scope as much as possible. I won't use libraries for trivia, and I evaluate frameworks extremely carefully. It's kind of funny how often your opinion is parroted in startup forums but for some reason I keep making more money every year despite every signal pointing to me somehow being in the class of engineer that are, according to you, better off without a job. Companies are run by idiots. The hubris you show is the same hubris a VP of engineering shows having last programmed 10 years ago. It shows a complete lack of nuance and understanding of the engineer.