Comments on: What is it with frameworks? http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/ Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:05:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Jamie Badman http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1448 Jamie Badman Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:16:12 +0000 http://blog.feed-squirrel.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1448 We use Cairngorm with Flex here - and the main reason we do this is simply that it's the most common framework for Flex and therefore if we need to recruit for Flex developers, we can recruit from those who are already familiar with this framework - and therefore will immediately be able to grasp the basic structure of the application code. For me, this is the best reason for using a public Framework there is. Jamie. We use Cairngorm with Flex here - and the main reason we do this is simply that it’s the most common framework for Flex and therefore if we need to recruit for Flex developers, we can recruit from those who are already familiar with this framework - and therefore will immediately be able to grasp the basic structure of the application code.

For me, this is the best reason for using a public Framework there is.

Jamie.

]]> By: Bill Johnson http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1440 Bill Johnson Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:22:11 +0000 http://blog.feed-squirrel.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1440 Thanks for the clarification Raymond. It's pretty easy to confuse framework and OO terminologies since they're frequently used together. Thanks for the clarification Raymond. It’s pretty easy to confuse framework and OO terminologies since they’re frequently used together.

]]> By: Raymond Camden http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1430 Raymond Camden Mon, 19 Feb 2007 22:09:28 +0000 http://blog.feed-squirrel.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1430 I don't think we have to say OO here. I write MG apps and they are not OO. There is no inheritance, no interfaces. I do make use of CFCs, but CFCs are NOT OO. Frameworks != OO don't forget. I don’t think we have to say OO here. I write MG apps and they are not OO. There is no inheritance, no interfaces. I do make use of CFCs, but CFCs are NOT OO.

Frameworks != OO don’t forget.

]]> By: Bill Johnson http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1428 Bill Johnson Mon, 19 Feb 2007 21:27:50 +0000 http://blog.feed-squirrel.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1428 @ Brian and Scott There may be some cases where OO programming is beneficial. However from my experience, making something OO just to make it OO greatly takes away from simplicity. Especially ColdFusion. Let's not forget that it was designed with simplicity in mind. Stuffing it into a framework in my opinion greatly defeats its original purpose. Another example, look at all the frameworks out there for Ajax. It's freaking ridiculous; an AJAX call only takes 5 lines of JavaScript code! However now that everyone is trying to push their latest and greatest framework, it now takes hundreds (if not thousands) of lines. Abstraction for abstractions sake, naawwww. I look at it more as overly anal retentive developers trying waay to hard to separate code from presentation and trying waaaay too hard to mesh academic concepts into real world applications. Good luck continuing to fight that battle, guys. Someday you will have total separation, I'm sure. :D @ Brian and Scott

There may be some cases where OO programming is beneficial. However from my experience, making something OO just to make it OO greatly takes away from simplicity. Especially ColdFusion. Let’s not forget that it was designed with simplicity in mind. Stuffing it into a framework in my opinion greatly defeats its original purpose.

Another example, look at all the frameworks out there for Ajax. It’s freaking ridiculous; an AJAX call only takes 5 lines of JavaScript code! However now that everyone is trying to push their latest and greatest framework, it now takes hundreds (if not thousands) of lines. Abstraction for abstractions sake, naawwww. I look at it more as overly anal retentive developers trying waay to hard to separate code from presentation and trying waaaay too hard to mesh academic concepts into real world applications. Good luck continuing to fight that battle, guys. Someday you will have total separation, I’m sure. :D

]]> By: Brian Kotek http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1427 Brian Kotek Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:03:44 +0000 http://blog.feed-squirrel.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1427 I have to agree with Ray here. I'm not sure what is so complex about the idea of an Event object encapsulating the form and url scopes. Fusebox 2 and 3 did this with the attributes scope. All three now have an event object. The point is that your code doesn't need to know or care whether incoming values are form or url variables, which is a huge benefit. I'm not sure what else any of the three main controller frameworks do to make you "pass around all sorts of variables and objects". The way you're talking about Proxy objects makes me think you're referring to the Facade and Adapter patterns, which really don't have anything to do with Frameworks at all. I don't think any of this is abstraction for abstraction's sake. I suppose its inevitable that over time some people forget why these kinds of abstractions were developed and what the pain points were. That's ok...I don't think it will take long for them to remember. I have to agree with Ray here. I’m not sure what is so complex about the idea of an Event object encapsulating the form and url scopes. Fusebox 2 and 3 did this with the attributes scope. All three now have an event object. The point is that your code doesn’t need to know or care whether incoming values are form or url variables, which is a huge benefit.

I’m not sure what else any of the three main controller frameworks do to make you “pass around all sorts of variables and objects”. The way you’re talking about Proxy objects makes me think you’re referring to the Facade and Adapter patterns, which really don’t have anything to do with Frameworks at all.

I don’t think any of this is abstraction for abstraction’s sake. I suppose its inevitable that over time some people forget why these kinds of abstractions were developed and what the pain points were. That’s ok…I don’t think it will take long for them to remember.

]]> By: Scott Stroz http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1426 Scott Stroz Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:54:04 +0000 http://blog.feed-squirrel.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1426 My suggestion would be to go beyond a simple 'Hello World' example before you form an opinion of some of these frameworks. Just think of what would need to be done in Fusebox 3 for a 'Hello World' example. Where frameworks tend shine is in large or complex applications. Using a 'Hello World' example to judge some of the new, OO-ish, frameworks is like judging a scientific calculator by how well it can do '2 + 2'. My suggestion would be to go beyond a simple ‘Hello World’ example before you form an opinion of some of these frameworks. Just think of what would need to be done in Fusebox 3 for a ‘Hello World’ example.

Where frameworks tend shine is in large or complex applications. Using a ‘Hello World’ example to judge some of the new, OO-ish, frameworks is like judging a scientific calculator by how well it can do ‘2 + 2′.

]]> By: Neil http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1425 Neil Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:29:50 +0000 http://blog.feed-squirrel.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1425 @Jacob & Bill - Blimey, someone agrees with me. I thought I was in the minority considering the traffic I see floating past on feed-squirrel.com @Ray - I agree with what you are saying, but to be honest a lot of it seems to be abstraction for abstractions sake. None of what you have mentioned are things that I would have considered as even remotely difficult even back in the CF 3 days. I would argue that frameworks probably add more overhead to a developer (day to day) than doing it in a more home-grown sort of way and re-using where appropriate. @Jacob & Bill - Blimey, someone agrees with me. I thought I was in the minority considering the traffic I see floating past on feed-squirrel.com

@Ray - I agree with what you are saying, but to be honest a lot of it seems to be abstraction for abstractions sake. None of what you have mentioned are things that I would have considered as even remotely difficult even back in the CF 3 days. I would argue that frameworks probably add more overhead to a developer (day to day) than doing it in a more home-grown sort of way and re-using where appropriate.

]]> By: Bill Johnson http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1422 Bill Johnson Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:58:36 +0000 http://blog.feed-squirrel.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1422 You couldn't have said it better! In my opinion FrameWorks are becoming popular now because of the .NET frenzy. "Since Microsoft is OO, now everything has got to be OO." It would be nice if people could take a couple steps back and question what best practice is before blindly assuming Microsoft is the way to go. You couldn’t have said it better! In my opinion FrameWorks are becoming popular now because of the .NET frenzy. “Since Microsoft is OO, now everything has got to be OO.” It would be nice if people could take a couple steps back and question what best practice is before blindly assuming Microsoft is the way to go.

]]> By: Raymond Camden http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1420 Raymond Camden Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:40:42 +0000 http://blog.feed-squirrel.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1420 I don't know. I mean - you said that these frameworks end up passing a lot of stuff around. In Model-Glue, that stuff is a) input parameters (form, url) b) things needed for the view So for a - the abstraction means you aren't tied to form or url scope or have to worry about updating code when you switch. As for B, having a API to store variables safely (which to be fair, is mainly like the Request scope), makes it simpler to deal with on larger web sites. I don’t know. I mean - you said that these frameworks end up passing a lot of stuff around. In Model-Glue, that stuff is

a) input parameters (form, url)
b) things needed for the view

So for a - the abstraction means you aren’t tied to form or url scope or have to worry about updating code when you switch. As for B, having a API to store variables safely (which to be fair, is mainly like the Request scope), makes it simpler to deal with on larger web sites.

]]> By: Jacob Munson http://neilmiddleton.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1419 Jacob Munson Mon, 19 Feb 2007 18:29:47 +0000 http://blog.feed-squirrel.com/2007/02/19/what-is-it-with-frameworks/#comment-1419 I agree 100%. I've been fairly excited about the commotion surrounding Steve Nelson's comments that are a lot like yours. To me a framework is just one guy sharing his own methodology, and hoping everybody else will use it. I agree 100%. I’ve been fairly excited about the commotion surrounding Steve Nelson’s comments that are a lot like yours. To me a framework is just one guy sharing his own methodology, and hoping everybody else will use it.

]]>