[UPHPU] notes from austin php users group

[jtaber]

Just a few more comments:
1) if the framework is bloated - just means we need a better framework, 
not that frameworks are bad.
2) Rails is not that bloated - right product, just wrong language :)
3) Do it yourself is fine as a learning experience on your own - but it 
is stupid for an employer.  I think it was DIY NIH that killed Netscape.
4) Time - a good framework shouldn't take much time, Rails doesn't (just 
learning ruby does).   VB and Delphi are great RAD examples. 
5) As an employer I'm more interested in growing productivity than in 
employees learning by trial and error - let them learn and write a 
framework on their own time.
6) With product life so short - RAD is imperative.
7) Open source frameworks should have demos that run on linux (ie not QT7)
John

Joshua Simpson wrote:
>
>
> On 12/20/06, *John David Anderson* <uphpu at johndavidanderson.net 
> <mailto:uphpu at johndavidanderson.net>> wrote:
>
>
>     By framework, I mean a pile of code that comprises all the stuff
>     you need to put in 90% of the applications you build - thus
>     enabling you to cut to the chase rather than reinventing the wheel
>     each time you sit down to a new project. Well, that, and the code
>     is tested by thousands of people on varied environments, many of
>     which contribute free code and ideas to the said pile of code.
>
>
> And you implicitly accept that all design decisions made in the code, 
> and all features, are ones that you want and need.  I don't know how 
> many open source projects you've seen, ESPECIALLY libraries / 
> frameworks / APIs, but, well, there are very few that have an 
> acceptable good tool to crap ratio.  And web dev libraries / 
> frameworks / APIs, even less.
>
>
>     libraries != framework (re: Zend "Framework")
>
>
> You mean a framework is more than a collection of libraries that 
> interface with each other, usually according to some design pattern?
>
>
>     I don't mind internal frameworks or libraries, though they miss
>     out on community based advantages (free code, free testing). 
>
>
>  That's definitely true, but in deciding to take an external framework 
> on, you're deciding that said community has made all the right choices.
>
>
>     Making custom changes doesn't defeat the purpose - that *is* the
>     purpose. You're only going to need to write code that performs
>     logic specific to your application. 
>
>
>
> I wasn't referencing modules / features / what have you, I was 
> referencing the design of the framework itself.  Personally, I think 
> MVC has been taken and run with the same way OOP has: to an insanely 
> ridiculous degree. 
>
>
>  I never said code reusability was bad, nor are all frameworks.  I 
> just think, especially in the web development community, there's too 
> much focus on learning X or Y framework, rather than the understanding 
> the design decisions / mechanisms behind the framework, and / or the 
> language the framework is built upon.
>
> dw
>