3 ms·
I used to feel this way. However I tended to find myself, on most projects, spending a surprising amount of time tweaking incompatibilities between the various
by ErrantX 15y ago
I used to feel this way. However I tended to find myself, on most projects, spending a surprising amount of time tweaking incompatibilities between the various lightweight libraries I was using. And it was a bit of an effort to unify things like logging and error reporting.
Which is when I realised the utility of a bulky framework; for the most part it is a suite of libraries that work together/are compatible but which someone else maintains for me :)
This was a big step for me.
(although I still use the lightweight approach for smaller projects)
- symbiotic 15y agoThat's a reasonable complaint, but maybe it means we need better lightweight libraries with well thought out interfaces or better library management like deweller suggested in the comments on the original thread.
- ErrantX 15y agoThat would be good - but then you begin to talk about a unified logging interface and standardisation like folder structure, class loading, class interfaces and so on. At which point it's basically a framework (perhaps without the routing/initialisation code). One thing I would like to see (no idea if it exists) is a core package architecture (that did all of the above) and let you hang packages as and when you need them. I've been keeping an eye out for such a thing for a while with no joy.