3 ms·

I’m just really tired of this debate about “frameworks” and “complexity”. If your client asks you for a custom CMS with a multi-stage publishing workflow with

I’m just really tired of this debate about “frameworks” and “complexity”. If your client asks you for a custom CMS with a multi-stage publishing workflow with i18n and regulation-compliant a11y, you’ll need high-powered tools to build it in the time clients expect. Lots of clients in enterprise are like this, which is why the demand for this stuff is so high. If you’re working in B2C this may be surprising, but this is what the underwater part of the tech industry iceberg is. Yes, a complicated Next.js setup or Vite toolchain isn’t necessary for a static blog. But the people who are talking seriously about these tools aren’t talking about making a simple blog site (even if that’s what their “reduced teaching case” tutorial is). So can we just chill with this framework hate? If you’ve got ideas for simple ways to make web sites, go ahead and publish tutorials, and if they’re appealing then people will start doing things your way where appropriate. But please don’t position yourself in opposition to a vague “spicy toolchains and trendy frameworks” enemy.

robswc 3y ago
Agreed, and this is someone who isn't a fan of the complexities frameworks introduce. Not OP but I'm not sure why people think you can't just use different tools for different jobs. There's times where a framework isn't needed but in my experience its rare, unless you're doing something _very_ simple that won't be changing often. I can't imagine how a "simple tools" site would work with a team and client... and that's not a diss on anything its just that I really don't see how.
okeuro49 3y ago
I agree. Furthermore if you're trying to do anything complex and you don't use a framework, you just end up creating another framework. But this time there are no updates or help on Stack overflow for the person who inherits the code.
- sanitycheck 3y ago
  Eh, I read this a lot. An app architecture is not a framework, frameworks get complicated because they have to be generalised enough to serve multiple projects with different requirements which leads to a ton of abstraction. Then because they're complicated they're difficult to learn. An architecture concept just needs a page or two of docs and diagrams to understand, and the code is right there in the app. You don't need a framework to implement relevant design patterns. Those apps can also last longer, because there's less pressure to rewrite in React/Svelte/Solid/etc when the existing code isn't dependent on some obsolete framework - Ember/Angular 1/etc.
  - okeuro49 3y ago
    > An app architecture i.e. a framework. > Then because they're complicated they're difficult to learn. It's easier to learn a publicly available framework, as there is lots of help on Stackoverflow, and usually the popular frameworks have good, or just existing, documentation. > existing code isn't dependent on some obsolete framework - Ember/Angular 1/etc. The "app architecture" can also become obsolete. But now instead of a migration path, you're stuck with the person who made the "app architecture" most likely having left the company.
    - sanitycheck 3y ago
      No, not a framework. The fundamental idea of a framework is that it's reusable, and there are inherent compromises and complexities which are a direct result of making reusability a goal. I've adopted lots of code, some good and some terrible. Framework-based code is only easier to understand if I already know the framework and sometimes not even then if the original developers mostly had to fight their framework. The "app architecture" does not become obsolete because nothing has come along to replace it and it was already simple enough that Stack Overflow was never a necessary part of development. K.I.S.S. Not just glam metal.
matthewhammond 3y ago
Yes the thing is most people participating in the conversation just haven't worked on the problems these tools are useful for. They maybe are an engineer... but they don't touch frontend, so they don't know much beyond the basics. Or they're a CS student... but they made a personal blog with Jekyll, so of course they know everything about frontend dev. Or they work on internal LoB apps with user counts in the two digits and no UX requirements... but they've been doing it for years, so of course they know all about it. It crowds out the discussion with low information takes.

robswc 3y ago

Agreed, and this is someone who isn't a fan of the complexities frameworks introduce. Not OP but I'm not sure why people think you can't just use different tools for different jobs. There's times where a framework isn't needed but in my experience its rare, unless you're doing something _very_ simple that won't be changing often. I can't imagine how a "simple tools" site would work with a team and client... and that's not a diss on anything its just that I really don't see how.

okeuro49 3y ago

I agree. Furthermore if you're trying to do anything complex and you don't use a framework, you just end up creating another framework. But this time there are no updates or help on Stack overflow for the person who inherits the code.

sanitycheck 3y ago
Eh, I read this a lot. An app architecture is not a framework, frameworks get complicated because they have to be generalised enough to serve multiple projects with different requirements which leads to a ton of abstraction. Then because they're complicated they're difficult to learn. An architecture concept just needs a page or two of docs and diagrams to understand, and the code is right there in the app. You don't need a framework to implement relevant design patterns. Those apps can also last longer, because there's less pressure to rewrite in React/Svelte/Solid/etc when the existing code isn't dependent on some obsolete framework - Ember/Angular 1/etc.
- okeuro49 3y ago
  > An app architecture i.e. a framework. > Then because they're complicated they're difficult to learn. It's easier to learn a publicly available framework, as there is lots of help on Stackoverflow, and usually the popular frameworks have good, or just existing, documentation. > existing code isn't dependent on some obsolete framework - Ember/Angular 1/etc. The "app architecture" can also become obsolete. But now instead of a migration path, you're stuck with the person who made the "app architecture" most likely having left the company.
  - sanitycheck 3y ago
    No, not a framework. The fundamental idea of a framework is that it's reusable, and there are inherent compromises and complexities which are a direct result of making reusability a goal. I've adopted lots of code, some good and some terrible. Framework-based code is only easier to understand if I already know the framework and sometimes not even then if the original developers mostly had to fight their framework. The "app architecture" does not become obsolete because nothing has come along to replace it and it was already simple enough that Stack Overflow was never a necessary part of development. K.I.S.S. Not just glam metal.

matthewhammond 3y ago

Yes the thing is most people participating in the conversation just haven't worked on the problems these tools are useful for. They maybe are an engineer... but they don't touch frontend, so they don't know much beyond the basics. Or they're a CS student... but they made a personal blog with Jekyll, so of course they know everything about frontend dev. Or they work on internal LoB apps with user counts in the two digits and no UX requirements... but they've been doing it for years, so of course they know all about it. It crowds out the discussion with low information takes.