You're viewing a comment by sol and its responses.

sol Permalink
March 11, 2016, 07:22

I also disagree. That's a huge generalization, obviously based on negative experience. A framework helps build better software, with structure, especially in large teams.

I also think that you're not quite honest because whenever a team builds software they create some kind of framework. Be it a re-used solid framework as mentioned in other comments, or just a OO structure of classes. But you do it because otherwise it would result in a mess.

So isn't it much better to use a solid framework that is maintained by a lot of people, than your individual reinvented wheel? Yes, it is. And the overhead mentioned in your list is far outweighted by the benefits.

Comment Responses

mhair Permalink
March 18, 2016, 15:42

This may be true, but when you're living this negative experience (https://github.com/zurb/foundation-sites/issues/8324), it is easy to understand how the author came to the conclusion. I'm living it as we speak. Zurb Foundation 6.x (http://foundation.zurb.com/) has been a, "less than stellar experience" and though they claim to be "slowing down and shoring up", that is starting to sound hollow since they said the same thing on the last point release, plus they've been promising things for nearly 4 months (like a migration guide), ignoring user's pleas.

One thing that does ring loud and clear in this author's article is to beware of hype. Zurb hyped this release greatly, which encouraged people to "depend" on it, claiming many solid enhancements such as much greater accessibility features that I fully support. Then they delivered a maze of problems in their build system, so much that I don't have any idea about the rest of the codebase since I can't get past the "modern tooling" to actually compile the code completely. People are now heavily invested, and it doesn't sit well with their own pressure to deliver projects. I'm actually reconsidering all of my alternatives right now after 3 months and other users have announced "farewell."

Major frameworks with a large user base have the responsibility to treat their "product" exactly how a "product manager" would. With the highest regard for user experience and ROI of time spent. That means strict quality control through testing and explicit documentation. Without that, and with a new paid support option I might add, it would appear they have a conflict of interest, or at the very least, a very questionable approach to revenue, one that certainly is not sustainable if they lose their user base. Their previous version had a rightfully good reputation. At this point, they need to quickly understand "product management" in order to recover their brand equity before it is too late.

Yet with all of this said, I feel a bit of their pain. Just as we depend on them, they have major dependencies themselves, perhaps this was their greatest flaw. As the author implies, and with my own experience in this situation, with level of complexity and sheer number of dependencies, a certain amount of chaos, and thus "churn", is a statistical certainty. Reducing dependencies….especially for frameworks….is a laudable goal. In general, I still support the use of frameworks in situations such as my own where I don't have a large team to help build our own solution, but I will think more carefully about each of the author's points each time a start a project from here on.

Alfred Permalink
September 25, 2017, 08:39

If Zurb is all you can think of when talking about "frameworks", I don't think you've got the point right.

Grant Parks Permalink
October 04, 2016, 16:50

Programming is not "inventing wheels". Your first sentence says it all "with structure"; a framework is a substitute for system design used by those who can't design software. A framework tells you how to configure it. It becomes configuration instead of designing and coding. It's a different, more commonly available mentality because the demand for software development exceeded the supply of excellent developers long ago.

AeroNav Permalink
September 10, 2018, 18:20

The core of the problem is not the idea of the framework to facilitate starting up a project, it is the ridiculous complexity and time needed to learn it. absolutely ridicules

Reply To This Comment

(why do I need your e-mail?)

(Your twitter handle, if you have one.)

Type the word "quake3_508": (just to make sure you're a human)

Please preview the comment before submitting to make sure it's OK.