3 ms·

I would like answer the same question much more simple: Because libraries can retain backwards compatibility much easier. It's not always true, but enough so t

by xorcist 12y ago

I would like answer the same question much more simple: Because libraries can retain backwards compatibility much easier. It's not always true, but enough so to be something you can reason about. Because of how the call flows (a framework calls you, you call a library), any non-trivial change in the structure of a framework requires a corresponding change in the application. A library has more degrees of freedom to change while retaining compatiblity.

jeremysmyth 12y ago
..but you can't just use one library to replace the functionality of a framework. While a library has "more degrees of freedom", this means your application (using many libraries) has many moving parts that don't really care about each other, so your application -- already octopussy because of having to glue libraries together in the first place -- now gets even curlier as you tweak it to fit library changes. Framework developers, one hopes, at least try to keep their changes-over-time a bit consistent within the framework. Library devs have no such obligation.