Aslam, for me the problem

rainwebs — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:12:53 -0400

Aslam,

for me the problem is, that we have too many "mental developers" in teams where the "architects view" is necessary. If you're a mental developer, avoiding complex stuff like architecture, a framework is the right solution. You can code the traditional try-and-error way and get a result pretty soon. Maintenance and the like is outside of the scope in this situation - what makes live much easier ;-). It feels better.

The danger with frameworks is to skip question the architecture you have to accept with it - or to even skip think about the bigger picture the framework will be a part of. It's easier to say: the framework is mature, so the concept behind it must be a good one.

For me real architects are aware of the weakness of a framework and can argue why they use it in spite of this.

Hi Steven, While I agree

aslamkhn — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:11:32 -0400

Hi Steven,

While I agree that the traction gained by Rails, Grails, etc is, to some extent, a result of the combination of a template-style framework backed by a dynamic typed language, these frameworks also make me cautious. I sometimes wonder whether the template approach is just another form of development-by-recipes, i.e. if you follow this recipe then your problem will be solved. And that worries me because it is a way of dumbing down complex things which creates the illusion that the framework will solve the domain problem ... especially for a newbie.

I am all for frameworks that takes away the drudgery of writing boilerplate code, etc. But, when it is marketed as a recipe based solution, then suddenly people want everything to look like it needs an ActiveRecord solution.

Apart from my own personal fears, that's a nice observation that you've made :-)

Cheers,
Aslam

Ruby Zone - Comments for "Future of Architecture: The Template"

Aslam, for me the problem

Hi Steven, While I agree