6 ms·
Beyond the question of how meaningful these metrics are, wouldn't it be a more useful metric to look at how complex the code you write when you use each framewo
by jimwise 14y ago
Beyond the question of how meaningful these metrics are, wouldn't it be a more useful metric to look at how complex the code you write when you use each framework is, rather than the code that implements each framework?
I suspect -- but don't know -- that these might even turn out to be inversely correlated for some types of frameworks. DSL-based frameworks often require some interesting tricks to get right.
So which is better? A complex framework that lets you write simple, concise code? Or a simple framework that requires a lot of boilerplate and complexity to use?
- obviouslygreen 14y agoI think the answer to your question, and probably the point of asking it, is that It Depends. If you're writing a very simple web service that will be accessed by millions of clients for a small set of straightforward operations, you'll probably want to pick the framework with the smallest footprint and write a very little bit of custom code. If you're writing a vastly complex system to mingle support for new and legacy data and integrate with many disparate third party services, you will want a framework that does a lot behind the scenes to make your own code as painless as possible. For everything else, aside from Mastercard, there's room for argument and discussion... but I think the only universal takeaway is that most or all of the frameworks mentioned have solid use cases, and none of them work for everyone in every circumstance.