3 ms·
I wouldn't really trust a Haskell programmer to be able to identify a hack. There are a lot of platitudes here whirling around a central point: Frameworks are
by debacle 12y ago
I wouldn't really trust a Haskell programmer to be able to identify a hack.
There are a lot of platitudes here whirling around a central point: Frameworks are more restrictive than libraries.
But, omgwtf, that's exactly the point of frameworks - they enforce convention in exchange for faster development. Also, newsflash, any large software project is going to have its own conventions. Okay, so, if you're still following me, get ready to take a leap. What if we have conventions that can apply to more than one project to reduce the ramp-up time for programmers to contribute?
The neophytes on HN eat this kind of stuff up, without ever considering that the thing the author is whining about is exactly the intent.
- mordocai 12y agoIn my personal experience, with any non-trivial application with continued (read as multiple years) of development frameworks tend to get in the way (I want to do this, but the framework wants me to do that even though this is better for my use case). Building your own "framework" from a good collection of libraries tends to not have this problem. Also, if it does have that problem (this library is getting in my way) you can usually more easily exchange the library for a different one. Note that developers tend to disagree on the definition of framework. When I say framework i'm saying something like Rails or Django that is a big monolithic thing that your application is built upon.