4 ms·

> it's designing and building the kind of house you want Yes, and that may be a fine decision. If it's your house, and you want ringing the doorbell to play a

> it's designing and building the kind of house you want Yes, and that may be a fine decision. If it's your house, and you want ringing the doorbell to play a symphony, and you want to store your cereal in the closet, that's fine. Whatever make s you happy. The issue is when you ask other people to live in the house with you. How hard will it be for them? Is the cost worth it? Maybe yes, maybe no.

coldtea 13y ago
That's a false dichotomy. A framework DOES include stuff that you're not gonna need, and also makes several architectural decisions for you. That's a given. A custom build (with libraries) site does not imply it will be done in some bizzaro way ("cereal in the closet", etc). That's NOT a given. So that particular accusation against frameworks is definitive, whereas what your particular accusation against projects not using frameworks is a maybe. (Not to mention that some frameworks, e.g a lot of Java ones, do enforce themselves a "cereal in the closet" --or AbstractFactorySingletonFactoryProxy -- mentality).
- astrodust 13y ago
  If it's customary to store the cereal in the closet in a framework, then people will know where to look for cereal. On the other hand, if you store your cereal under a squeaky board in the kitchen, that's not helping anyone.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    Or, you know, you can build your own house AND keep the cereal in a normal place.
    - nathan_long 13y ago
      My analogy was terrible. I admit it. But in actual practice, software varies more than houses do. You could easily walk into my house and find the kitchen. The stove and sink are both there as expected. But despite how carefully I thought it through and built it, and despite the fact that it made perfect sense to me, I doubt you'd find my custom-built intranet app easy to navigate. On the other hand, my last Rails app has a structure familiar to any Rails developer. The actual business logic is unique, but that's the part that has to be unique. "How do we update the database schema?" is a given. And if it's unfamiliar, there's plenty of documentation and blog posts to help you. With custom-built code, there's no help on the web.

coldtea 13y ago

That's a false dichotomy. A framework DOES include stuff that you're not gonna need, and also makes several architectural decisions for you. That's a given. A custom build (with libraries) site does not imply it will be done in some bizzaro way ("cereal in the closet", etc). That's NOT a given. So that particular accusation against frameworks is definitive, whereas what your particular accusation against projects not using frameworks is a maybe. (Not to mention that some frameworks, e.g a lot of Java ones, do enforce themselves a "cereal in the closet" --or AbstractFactorySingletonFactoryProxy -- mentality).

astrodust 13y ago
If it's customary to store the cereal in the closet in a framework, then people will know where to look for cereal. On the other hand, if you store your cereal under a squeaky board in the kitchen, that's not helping anyone.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Or, you know, you can build your own house AND keep the cereal in a normal place.
  - nathan_long 13y ago
    My analogy was terrible. I admit it. But in actual practice, software varies more than houses do. You could easily walk into my house and find the kitchen. The stove and sink are both there as expected. But despite how carefully I thought it through and built it, and despite the fact that it made perfect sense to me, I doubt you'd find my custom-built intranet app easy to navigate. On the other hand, my last Rails app has a structure familiar to any Rails developer. The actual business logic is unique, but that's the part that has to be unique. "How do we update the database schema?" is a given. And if it's unfamiliar, there's plenty of documentation and blog posts to help you. With custom-built code, there's no help on the web.