DEV Community

Cover image for Todo-MVP: Or 'Why You Shouldn't Use A Web Framework' - The Revenge
David Wickes
David Wickes

Posted on

Todo-MVP: Or 'Why You Shouldn't Use A Web Framework' - The Revenge

Earlier this year I wrote:

which caused something of a kerfuffle. I think the polite way to describe the response would be 'mixed, but passionate'.

So, because it's better to light a candle than curse the dark, I'd like to introduce a small project I've been putting together called Todo-MVP as a way of demonstrating some of the ideas I've ranted talked about.

But first - I'll recap the original post and have a go at responding to some of the more common criticisms.1

Polite Recap

I think that web frameworks add incidental complexity to projects, taking control from the developer who is using them and placing it in the hands of whoever wrote the framework. As such, we're forced down particular ways of architecting and configuring an application which may not suit our needs or purpose. We will probably not recognise this at the beginning of a project, but by the time that we do we will be so 'embedded' within the framework's system that it will be hard to make the necessary changes.

More strongly, the reliance on frameworks becomes a vicious circle; when we lack the skills to build web applications from simple libraries we will turn to a framework to build our websites, and when that inevitably fails us in some way we will seek another equally unsuitable framework.2

A particularly egregious example of this is the use of frontend JavaScript frameworks to render plain HTML content that could just as easily be hosted on a static site server.

Finally, the 'framework first' mindset scares people away from even trying to write an application without a framework - they automatically assume it must be hard as, if it weren't, then there wouldn't be a framework in the first place. This is untrue. It is just as easy to understand and use a collection of well written libraries to build your applications as it is to use a framework, and you do not leave yourself open to the problems listed above.3

Response to Criticism

Some people seemed to think that I want to write everything in C. Or assembler. No; although that might be fun it would probably be inefficient in terms of time.4 My issue was specifically with frameworks. A good definition of a framework might be:

You call a library's code. A framework calls your code.

Read this Stack Overflow question if you would like more nuance. But, if you hadn't guessed, in my eyes the libraries are (mostly) the good guys. So - use libraries (hopefully ones which have good abstractions), avoid frameworks.

Others claimed that they 'would end up building a framework themselves' if they didn't use a framework. This is unlikely, unless they want to optimize for churning out multiple applications with identical structures. You will not 'build a framework'.

What you will build is the application you were trying to build in the first place and - nothing more. If you've done it right it will be flexible enough to change and grow in the future.

Adrian Holovaty puts it better than me in this talk - he's fluent, polite, and plays better jazz guitar:

Todo-MVP

So in the interests of putting my money where my big mouth is I wrote this:

GitHub logo gypsydave5 / todo-mvp

The non-SPA version of the todo list app

Todo-MVP

The objective of this project is to demonstrate that it is relatively simple to build web applications using HTML, CSS and a small amount of server side code written in a language of your choice.

It's the Todo Minimum Viable Product - the simplest and most extensible application you can write - but perhaps it's also the Most Valuable Player in your web development toolkit. I like to think so!

META-TODO

  • Working Todo-MVP application
  • Nice CSS
  • Good a11y
  • Simple acceptance test
  • Best in class a11y
  • Implement in multiple languages
  • Multiple CSS files
  • Automated deployment
  • Automate the acceptance test
  • ???
  • PROFIT!

The Todo Application

The project consists (or will consist) of the following:

  • Many Todo applications, written in multiple languages, all each serving the same HTML and implementing the same API.
  • An acceptance test to confirm that the application does the above

Principles

Whereas I respect the skill and effort…

This is my take on the TodoMVC idea, but instead of building the Todo application using a variety of frontend frameworks, I've tried doing it with a variety of webservers written in different languages.

They all implement the same API using HTTP network calls to control the application. And they all render the same HTML elements, which can be styled with the same CSS.

I'm trying to demonstrate here that you don't need a framework - you barely need any libraries - to build something that works, is usable, and that you can understand and build again and again.

The idea isn't to build a complete application - in real life you'd want to provide some persistence (like a database), individual user sessions, identity, authorization... all things that I'm happy to skip over with this example but which should not be hard to implement as much or as little as you need.5

A running instance of one of the implementations can be found at todo-mvp.com.

Todo-MVP Needs YOU

todo list with 'contribute to Todo-MVP on it

YES YOU!

Please help me! Could you spend a bit of your hacking time building a simple implementation in the language of your choice? Even if someone else has done it in a language you like, you could do it again but demonstrating different libraries, a different approach - even using a framework if you'd like to show how that would work.

Read the contributing guide, write an implementation, run the acceptance tests and get a pull request in.

Also - everything can be improved in every way! Feel free to write some amazing CSS if that's where you can shine, help me improve the app by spotting and fixing accessibility issues, help write some documentation...

There's so much... to do 😉


  1. You should really read the original comments and criticisms - some of them are comedy gold (in a good way!). 

  2. This also leads to groupthink (framework think) with respect to architectural patterns. Your application may not fit neatly into a MVC RESTful CRUD application, but it's likely that that is what you will have to build with a framework. 

  3. The real point of a framework may be to enforce a project structure and architecture on you. If you want this - then fine, go for it. But I don't believe that that is a good value proposition. 

  4. But it could be amazingly efficient in terms of your paycheck - keep billing kids! 

  5. Or use an external service - IDaaS is increasingly popular. 

Top comments (110)

Collapse
 
jabyess profile image
Jimmy Byess

I think you've got some really good ideas about a few things, and you've also missed (or not yet come to see) the problems that frameworks solve.

Writing everything from scratch is a great way to learn how things work. Maybe you want to understand what really goes on during the request-response lifecycle, or you want to write raw SQL queries instead of using a heavy ORM. The understanding that you get from doing this is super valuable, and every developer should certainly do it on some level. Also, because you have a deeper understanding of a concept it lets you debug other people's code more easily.

I think there are more and bigger downsides to writing everything from scratch though.

Writing from scratch is reinventing the wheel. Sure, you might come up with a better way to do it (maybe, but I probably won't, and definitely not the first time I do it). But practically every web application has a need to send requests and handle responses, and communicate with a database in some way or another.

Because these tasks are so common, people have written code to do the work for them. They have developed methods of dealing with them. You can think about the tasks as "problems" - they're things that need to get done in order for your application to work.

Using someone else's solution to handle requests and database queries just means that you're going to focus on solving different problems. The ones that your application has specific needs for, whatever that might be.

Learning how to solve these problems is valuable, but once you've built many applications, you may be tired of solving the same problems over and over again. This is why frameworks were developed.

Various frameworks might solve the same problems in different ways, but ultimately they do it so that you don't have to. Yes, you're limited to the choices the framework authors made, but in many cases that's okay because you're focusing on solving other problems. Yes, you have to learn how that framework solves those problems, but that's true every time you use code that you didn't write.

The main advantage I see to frameworks is standardization. this matters on bigger teams. You can hire someone that says "I know django and angular" and they can be productive on your project because they've already been exposed to the patterns that django and angular apps follow. They don't have to learn any new paradigms, they only have to learn your project's specific business logic.

I would also argue that frameworks (generally) scale better - not necessarily in terms of performance, but definitely when talking about code organization and design patterns. Having iterated and developed standards over time helps with this a ton. Working on a gigantic rails project is tough (though manageable), but working on a gigantic custom framework involves much more cognitive overhead, especially early on.

Anyway, no matter what you use, you're going to be solving problems. Which ones do you want to spend your time on?

Collapse
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes • Edited

Writing from scratch is reinventing the wheel.

If I want to correct one idea in this it's the idea that not using a framework means that I'll be reinventing the wheel. A lot of what you say about avoiding the duplication of effort applies to libraries. I like libraries. But why don't I like frameworks?

Use libraries so you're not 'reinventing the wheel' of HTTP message parsing. Maybe you'll use an ORM library to manage your database. Maybe you'll use a thin wrapper over SQL. But if you've abstracted the persistence layer correctly then you'll be able to change your mind depending on your needs and not the capability of the framework.

Collapse
 
jabyess profile image
Jimmy Byess

I agree that's true if you have the need to change things like that later. But in my experience, you have to go incredibly far down the road or have really extreme/specialized needs to not be satisfied with an off-the-shelf solution.

Your TODO-MVP has several good examples of how you can do some of these things with little code. I will posit an alternative - you can save yourself a ton of time by using a framework. You'll end up with more total code (maybe), but you'll also have more time to focus on other things.

Thread Thread
 
esayreum profile image
Errol Sayre

You seem to be ignoring the time it can take to determine how a framework wants you to solve a given problem. We've spent considerable time on a CakePHP project trying to find the "right way" to solve a handful of problems which could have been solved with vanilla PHP in an hour.

Collapse
 
guglielmogcg profile image
guglielmogcg

I shy away from strong opinions because I'm as green as one can be in this field (green... field... mwahahah) but I'm guided by an excellent team and honestly, even when we develop in Rails, there are times when requests ought to be written in SQL, which is not only super educational but also makes (some) things faster, depending on how heavy the task is the gain can be huge. And I think that even using frameworks, knowing what's going on and having a curious/ tinkering mindset can allow you to slim down things a lot of times, avoid adding unnecessary components and such. I think what gipsydave5 says is not all theory. Again, a noob's two cents.

Collapse
 
slitcanvas profile image
Adam Smith • Edited

A thoroughly interested read. It's nice to stand back every now and then and ask "why am I doing it this way?" Usually the answers are terrifying "we've always done it this way" or "it made sense at the time". I'm totally for a proportional solution. Why build a rocket when you're only going to the supermarket?

Collapse
 
peterdkc profile image
Peter DeMarco

We haven't always done it this way. We do it this way because we tried the way he's suggesting for years and it was proven hands down to be slower, more expensive, less secure, and infinitely harder to add new head count into...

Collapse
 
quii profile image
Chris James

Citation very much needed here.

Again people keep pretending that David and others are somehow not productive by not using a framework. You keep saying it but the evidence in his eyes (and my own) say otherwise.

I dont use a framework for the current project and i am very productive. I see another team using Spring, and they tie themselves in knots constantly trying to understand the damn thing. Who is productive again?

Thread Thread
 
exbe profile image
exbe • Edited

Writing new code is ALWAYS slower than not writing it.

How many people knows Spring?

How many people knows your solution? Only you? Ten?

If you are writing code for money, you should know it is not about your productivity. It is about productivity of people, who would support your product after you.

Usually frameworks wins due to popularity... and it is their core purpose.

There are bad frameworks.
There are misused applications of a framework.

Thread Thread
 
peterdkc profile image
Peter DeMarco • Edited

I guess not your one arbitrary ad hoc example team. I work in a company with thousands of engineers and I've worked on teams as small as two and everything in between. I can cite dozens of ad hoc examples as well, but I'll go ahead and point to any job board and the percentage of jobs that state "We want you to not use a framework to work on this project." Any Fermi estimates of how many you're gonna find? I'll go with Zero. The industry runs on frameworks because they work and work well for 99% of what we do in real life every day. Can I think of some situations where a framework would be a detriment? Yes. Can I think of ways to cherry pick libraries to solve those edge case architectures? Yes. Does that matter for the vast majority of bog standard web apps that the vast majority of us churn out week to week? Hell no. Perfectly good frameworks in the wild today remove boilerplate, provide tons of affordances, have solid communities, and make it easier to focus on your use case specific code. Not to mention being able to hire new headcount that can be up and running on real work with very little onboarding. That's why they're used, as many have stated. The difference between you and me is not that either of us can or can't use frameworks to build applications, it's that one of us is on an esoteric quest an the other has better things to do than fiddle with library curation. If your article said, "I know frameworks are super useful but here's some use cases where you should consider not using them and here's how you'd go about it" you wouldn't be receiving all this flack in the comments. Your "This way or the highway because straw man imaginary problems" is why people are crapping all over it.

Thread Thread
 
quii profile image
Chris James

The difference between you and me is not that either of us can or can't use frameworks to build applications, it's that one of us is on an esoteric quest an the other has better things to do than fiddle with library curation

Actually I'd just rather not have to learn how to use a new framework every couple of years because that's what happens to all of them. I have better things to do than learn some other person's idea of how a web app should be built when in essence all i really need is

main function, start server, with router, routes mapped to controllers... job done.

The fact you are strawman-ing the argument in terms of being "esoteric" is pretty sad.

Re job ads, find any Go jobs with a framework and come back to me. All the job ads I look at in my area dont specify frameworks at all, shrug. They usually just look for good engineers with some familiarity with particular programming languages.

Thread Thread
 
peterdkc profile image
Peter DeMarco

So you're building static sites? Because you haven't listed Auth, Storage, Caching, Queues, Jobs, Search, Web Sockets, API, templating, DI, or any other number of things that are used quite frequently if not 100% of the time on the apps I'm building every day. Your "Job Done" looks a helluva lot different than my "Job Done". And if that's your use case fine, but don't try to pretend that that's common. That's all choices that I can either take the time to make myself and then explain to dozens or hundreds of other people, or I can just say, "Here's the standard way the framework has chosen to solve for it, learn it once and use it for the next 100 apps you spin up. If you run into an edge case we'll flip out the stock solve for something that works for that." You make some super weird arguments my friend...

Thread Thread
 
rhymes profile image
rhymes

Chris, Rails has been around for 12 years. I think the first version I used was 3 something, we're almost at 6. It's essentially the same thing.

I think JS frameworks deserve a bit of your distaste but most server side frameworks don't change that fast.

There would be riots if they did.

Thread Thread
 
quii profile image
Chris James • Edited

So you're building static sites? Because you haven't listed Auth, Storage, Caching, Queues, Jobs, Search, Web Sockets, API, templating, DI

All covered by libraries, if and when i need them.

Apart from DI, you dont need libraries for DI (although things like frameworks will trick you into thinking you do)

Chris, Rails has been around for 12 years.

This is a fair point.

I would still contend the overall tone of it being wasteful/impossible to build non-trivial applications without frameworks is bordering on absurd.

Look at most Go projects, you wont find any frameworks there. How are people making "real" things with Go?

Thread Thread
 
rhymes profile image
rhymes

I think you conflated two separate answers by two different people 😬

I think both camps have valid points but I've only seen one or two people talking about the value of frameworks in equalizing the developer experience between different levels of skills or in companies with high turnover.

I don't think you always need a framework but I don't also think you never do.

Thread Thread
 
quii profile image
Chris James

Yes I was trying to reply to both with the quotes but maybe the UX of this site didnt expect such a nested flamewar ;)

I don't think you always need a framework but I don't also think you never do.

I dont disagree at all. I feel like the main point of this post is that it shouldn't be the default position that you do.

Thread Thread
 
rhymes profile image
rhymes • Edited

I can hire a mid level developer and outsource the cost of teaching them the parts of my code that are just infrastructure and focus on the actual application exactly because I know that they know where the code is put.

How can I outsource that? By using a framework and make sure they actually know it when interviewing.

Could a good developer be brought up to speed in a frameworkless environment? Sure.

Will it always happen? Nope. I've seen the horror of multi year apps written "just with PHP" (I was hired to rewrite it in Django exactly because nobody knew how it worked and they just kept it there as legacy).

It really depends on the people in this framework less space. You guys are capable developers and made a sensible choice.

As a freelancer I came across small agencies with developers with variable levels of skills with unmaintanable apps using a framework. They would have had unmaintanable apps nonetheless without such framework. The difference is that the new set of eyes (me in that case) was able to just focus on the spaghetti app code, not also the spaghetti infrastructure code.

My personal experience of growing big with a framework is that you ultimately will end up just using it as a layer between your logic and HTML, the more your skills improve.

Something like

def action
  # call my business logic, ok bye
  # return some HTML
end

I don't see the big difference in the case of a well experienced developer like you are.

My favorite framework is Flask because it just does the boring parts of web apps and can be plugged with functionality pretty easily. Also has a neat concept called blueprints that allows you to put controllers wherever you want

 
quii profile image
Chris James

Not if the code you are re-using is not fit for purpose.

Or if it forces you down roads that are not necessary.

Plus almost every framework that has any kind of popularity has books, books written about them. Does that not tell you there is a big cost to using them, at least in terms of understanding them.

Thread Thread
 
rzpicazzo profile image
Alejandro AP

True, but at the same time programming languages have books written about them, entire encyclopedias of books for just language semantics. The comparison does not seem entirely on point. Just so you know, I don't necessarily disagree with any of your previous points on the matter at hand.

Thread Thread
 
quii profile image
Chris James • Edited

True, but at the same time programming languages have books written about them, entire encyclopedias of books for just language semantics.

I guess my point is more the supposed ease of picking up a framework with zero cost is false; some evidence being the huge amount of literature available for them

No one would argue picking up a new programming language is zero cost (there's books for them as you point out) and yet people think they can get tons of functionality for zero cost by using frameworks.

Collapse
 
solarliner profile image
🇨🇵️ Nathan Graule

I think the "Vanilla JS" approach shouldn't even use any backend. The way you've set up the projects with the backends feel very reminiscent of 90s stuff where every action you took was sent and the page refreshed (I haven't run the code, so I can't say, but that was from reading the Node.js code). Having a global array storing the files, or even manipulating localStorage would be a 100x better way to compare this code to other frameworks.

Just some thoughts from glancing at the project.

Collapse
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes • Edited

Yes. That's exactly right. You will be redirected after an action and will see a new page.

So what? What does it miss in terms of the requirements of a todo-style application?

Having a global array storing the files, or even manipulating localStorage would be a 100x better way to compare this code to other frameworks.

Sounds like you're after a frontend only implementation - this project is explicitly avoiding frontend JS. Can I direct you towards the very worthy vanilla implementations on TodoMVC.

very reminiscent of 90s stuff

You make it sound like a bad thing...

Collapse
 
nssimeonov profile image
Templar++

I checked the vanilla js TodoMVC... and I don't like it. Too much code for problems solved hundreds of times. Take for example the template:

    function Template() {
        this.defaultTemplate
        =   '<li data-id="{{id}}" class="{{completed}}">'
        +       '<div class="view">'
        +           '<input class="toggle" type="checkbox" {{checked}}>'
        +           '<label>{{title}}</label>'
        +           '<button class="destroy"></button>'
        +       '</div>'
        +   '</li>';
    }

And then using string operations the app is replacing values:

            template = template.replace('{{id}}', data[i].id);
            template = template.replace('{{title}}', escape(data[i].title));

So much code... and the more you write the more bugs you may have... this is exactly what we all are trying to avoid - reinventing the wheel again and again.

Thread Thread
 
codiiv profile image
Jay

Tadaaaa !!

Collapse
 
exbe profile image
exbe

Yes, it is. Networking eats time. Worse, the user experience is quite annoying on bad and unstable connections. Any smooth UX is doomed for people who is acessing the page from another half of the planet.

But not every site strive for smooth UI experiences for their users, which is ok.

Thread Thread
 
quii profile image
Chris James

Why are you asserting that you cannot have a "smooth UX" with this approach. What is not smooth about how it works now?

I'll tell you what isn't smooth, downloading megs of javascript and executing it on a low power device.

Thread Thread
 
exbe profile image
exbe

Because I was using 90xx web.

Page refresh doesn't happen fast enough as background interactions and rendering result as it arrives. This implies SOME logic on a client.

This is specifically true for remote sites. You will have at best speed of light delay before retrieving content. In worst case network fluctuations might give very annoying delay just to get new content. Yes, and you customer will be staring at WHITE page, because browser viewport have nothing to render.

This is why I am so assertive.
If you don't like it, fine - learn your way ;)

Modern browsers smart enough to cache your megs once and then transmit pure json back and forth, reducing overall need for bandwidth. Plus it happens behind the scene, so customer might enjoy that spinner animation or enjoy previously loaded content.

Collapse
 
solarliner profile image
🇨🇵️ Nathan Graule

Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood the scope of the project then.

You make it sound like a bad thing...

Well as a pure UX standpoint it's very bad as doing anything will prevent use interaction until the state is synced with the server. It's like the AJAX "spinner apps", although those already used client side JS... So admittedly more modern than this 😜

But as a To-do MVP example it is an area where the was none before - and maybe I can contribute with a Django or a Flask app some time!

Thread Thread
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes

I'd love to see a Django / Flask / Python pull request from you into Todo-MVP (I'm not very experienced with Python). Please let me know if I can help in any way!

Collapse
 
richardmurag profile image
Muragijimana Richard

I think you should differentiate opinion and facts, the most reason framework are used is for good common standards that is hard to get as solo developer something like security stuff, I think if you are creating a simple toy app then that is cool as you can kill anytime.

Collapse
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes

That's your opinion. I happen to know as a fact that (a) I am employed, and (b) I am not using a framework when I build my applications. I do use a number of very nice libraries however.

If you're using a framework to enforce an architecture or code standards then that's a terrible way to avoid talking to your colleagues to reach an agreement on those (mostly bikeshed) issues.

'Security stuff' can usually be handled by either a library, or if you're worried about user data can be outsourced to another identity service.

And, please, although these examples are certainly toys, the idea that anything built without using a framework is a toy is ludicrous. 'Industry standard' and 'best practice' are often just ways of excusing a failure to think for yourself.

Collapse
 
pizzapanther profile image
Paul Bailey

"often just ways of excusing a failure to think for yourself"

This is a very good thing!

Otherwise, you have to spend years of studying to do anything of significance. Or if you want to go into an area you haven't studied before, frameworks make it easier to do this.

So yes "think for yourself" but not all the time because you'll get less done.

I would hate to see a world without frameworks because the barrier to programming something useful would be higher and deter people from entering the field.

Thread Thread
 
quii profile image
Chris James

I would hate to see a world without frameworks because the barrier to programming something useful would be higher and deter people from entering the field.

I feel its the opposite and youre maybe missing the point of the post.

In my view, the barrier to entry of programming looks worse than it is because of frameworks.

Look at the code Dave posted. It's not complicated or hard. The point he is making is the barrier to entry is already low, if you look past the hype of FOTM frameworks and just study the basics.

It's just there is a perception that you cant do something "real" unless there's a framework. Learning frameworks is so much harder than learning the fundamentals.

Thread Thread
 
pizzapanther profile image
Paul Bailey

I agree you can do a lot without a framework. But you can do something more "professional" with a framework faster at least initially. To get to that uncomplicated code probably took years of experience. Most people even if they know the basics write bad code and it takes years to make it good and uncomplicated. A framework at least guides you along until your good enough to do those on your own. The real problem comes when trying to throw away the framework when you don't need it any more.

Abstractions are hard to get right. And an abstraction that has been vetted by a community and implemented in code is hard to beat.

Thread Thread
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes

Abstractions are hard to get right

Too right they are! Abstracting away a database - awesome. Abstracting away the underlying bytes of an HTTP response - I'm a fan.

But what does, say, Angular abstract? What is the underlying entity that is abstracted by Ruby on Rails?

In my opinion, they are not abstractions at all. They're tarballs of multiple abstractions, an attempt to generalize certain business requirements. I think you'll get so far with this, but in the end (as you rightly say):

The real problem comes when trying to throw away the framework when you don't need it any more.

Thread Thread
 
pizzapanther profile image
Paul Bailey

I would love to see a discussion about what frameworks have a good off ramp when you have out grown them. Do they exist? Or what are some techniques to do so? Or which frameworks are the most flexible and let you interchange the pieces?

Thread Thread
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes

I would love to see a discussion about what frameworks have a good off ramp when you have out grown them.

Now that is a great question. I think you could dip your toes by Googling 'How I migrated Angular to React' to get some idea.

Collapse
 
codiiv profile image
Jay

I am not sure of who said that "the idea that anything built without using a framework is a toy is ludicrous". Even if someone did though, saying that "one shouldn't use a framework" is also as ludicrous.

Either has its place for the developer who understands. In at least one project for my clients I don't even have a library. In a few I use libraries and in some more I use frameworks.

They key is understanding the right tools for the job

Collapse
 
theelectricdave profile image
David S. • Edited

I have been programming for over a decade. I can whip around the base language very quickly.

The requirement of a framework is actually a huge barrier for me because you have to know another language on top that obscures what is happening below. It also reduces performance, and creates a lot of abstract things to keep in mind.

I think learning frameworks first, language second is incredibly dangerous. I have known people who took that route and they've often abandoned projects because they didn't know how to do the difficult thing in the base language.

I have the opposite problem. Throw me some code written in vanilla js/php, and i can quickly grasp it and hack on it. Throw an unknown framework in the mix and i am completely lost due to all the extra abstractions.

Collapse
 
toddjspin profile image
Todd Spindler

Would like to know the list of libraries you use....Thanks!

Thread Thread
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes

Sure! I was using the lib HTTP4K - programming in Kotlin.

Collapse
 
codiiv profile image
Jay

"why shouldn't use a framework" pretty much tags frameworks as bad news. As a developer who can code with or without a framework, I would say that it depends on what you are coding. Some of the frameworks are unnecessarily cumbersome, yes, but that in itself is not a valid basis for an argument.

For instance, if you to code a clone of a system like Yelp, a framework like Laravel in PHP would 100% be better off than coding it from scratch if you have limited a budget! A biography page shouldn't need an angular scafolding when vanilla Js or jQuery should suffice!

You can move 20 tons in a shot with a 18-wheeler, or you can make about 6-8 trips with an average family truck for the same loads.

Collapse
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes

A biography page shouldn't need an angular scafolding when vanilla Js or jQuery should suffice!

Or, dare I suggest, just some HTML?

Collapse
 
exbe profile image
exbe

If just HTML would be enough, people would not come up with css, images, animations.

HTML is okay for info, but it sucks in representation. Fun fact, that any attempt to replace html with anything more suitable just failed (hello flash).

Yeah, you can use some HTML. But such pages have little chance to stand out. For a some weird reason, customers like then their pages look and feel nice.

Thread Thread
 
solarliner profile image
🇨🇵️ Nathan Graule

I think what he means is that you can build your blog with nothing more than your templated HTML - no frontend JS needed. You still can make your page look and feel nice, but without resorting to doing everything on the client.

Thread Thread
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes

Exactly - two thumbs up!

Thread Thread
 
exbe profile image
exbe

You can, yes. Moreover, it makes more sense in serverless world to a certain degree.

One might even have a successful commercial html-only project. But I am confident enough to claim it as an exception rather than a rule.

Collapse
 
codiiv profile image
Jay

You get the gist

Collapse
 
wolfymaster profile image
Paul Sherer

Ill paraphrase Uncle Bob, "frameworks should be a plug-in and not the basis of an architecture".. if the first thing you do when discussing your architecture is pick the framework, you're already wrong. You also are "buying in" to said framework which could theoretically change at any time. You are at the mercy of the author(s). IMO, and how I design systems, architectures are just a tool that is lovely coupled to the core business logic.

Collapse
 
nssimeonov profile image
Templar++

While this is true and I agree, that choosing a framework should not be the first thing to do when starting a project, we have frameworks for a reason. You can't develop everything from scratch and it's not so easy to do some changes even if we are speaking about purely cosmetic changes like switching from bootstrap to material design. It's just like when building machines - their parts are carefully designed to be transportable... which in turn seems to depend how wide a horse's rear end is...

astrodigital.org/space/stshorse.html

Collapse
 
shalvah profile image
Shalvah

You always use a framework when coding. The difference is whether it's written by you or someone else.

Collapse
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes

I'd really like to understand what you think a framework is.

Collapse
 
shalvah profile image
Shalvah

Let's just say "all the supporting code and how they're tied together".

Thread Thread
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes

all the supporting code

So libraries I'm guessing

and how they're tied together

So an 'architecture' in the loosest possible sense.

All code has libraries and an architecture. Sure, I'll buy that.

But not all code uses a framework. A framework is when somebody else other than me has chosen the libraries and the architecture for my project and is preventing me from changing them.

All libraries and architectures are chosen by someone. I'd just rather that someone was me and my team rather than the collected generalizations and compromises that make up a 'framework'.

Thread Thread
 
exbe profile image
exbe

This is exactly the reason I am not supporting "no framework" idea. You want to make archetectual decisions. Good for you. However I don't want to be that dude, who will be forced to maintain your product after you done playing the architect role.

Or, shall I expect your commitment for next 10 years or more? Should I expect great support for your solution going forward? Should I expect more and more solved technicalities? Will you give me a good documentation?

While I agree that any given framework might be too heavy for certain cases, they save time whenever anyone like it or not. It is too bad, that js offers too many half backed frameworkd and people choose to write their own.
Why franeworks any a necessity? Because every developer faces same technical challenges: DOM manipulation, templatization, communication via protocol, security, auth/authz, localization, event consumption....

Every project is different, yet some technicalities are the same. It is very natural to have shared common high-quality code to solve above with writing less client code. Which means yes - given up some architecture decisions to existing solutions.

But is that really that bad? Shouldn't you worried about solving for your specific client rather worrying for entire developer community? Framework solves for tech stuff, but it does solve for customer domain? What's the reason to increase backlog for yourself and people after you?

Thread Thread
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes • Edited

Why franeworks any a necessity? Because every developer faces same technical challenges: DOM manipulation, templatization, communication via protocol, security, auth/authz, localization, event consumption....

DOM manipulation? Use a library
Templates? Use a library
Communicate by a protocol (say HTTP)? Use a library
Security?
Auth?
Localization?
'Event Consumption'?

Shouldn't you [be] worried about solving for your specific client rather worrying for entire developer community?

Absolutely. Which is why I solve the specific problems of a client rather than installing the generalized website solution software (which solves problems that my client may not have) and then spending the rest of my life hacking around to make it fit the specification.

That is a real issue; heavily customized 'framework' solutions which are neither fowl nor fish. Developers have adapted the framework so heavily to fit requirements that it's barely recognisable, giving you none of the benefits of the framework but none of the upsides. I think I cover this in my other article.

Thread Thread
 
exbe profile image
exbe • Edited

Lib-way works for small to mid sites, where functionality is segregated and don't overlap, sorry.

There is no one-size-fits all and pushing for a "no framework" feels like it.

Use lib X. Use lib Y. Use lib A.
Add glue-code.
After first year, add lib B and lib C
Oh, C depends on another version of A.
Add glue-code.
Oh, now these libs should be mobile friendly...

I would expect framework to guarantee consistency with API and contracts cross-functionality wise. It is expected to minimize glue and boilerplate code.

In the ideal world.

I certainly understand the frustration then new intent and requirement doesn't fit with old framework. Sh!t happens, time to migrate to more suitable tool.

... or change roles and go to java, .net, c# whatever. Those guys stuck with a framework for decades :)

Thread Thread
 
quii profile image
Chris James

However I don't want to be that dude, who will be forced to maintain your product after you done playing the architect role.

You know that it's possible to refactor and change code right?

If you dont like the way Dave has architected the code (which btw, isn't anywhere near as big as you probably think it is for most projects) then you can just refactor it.

If you dont like how a framework has architected things, well good luck.

Thread Thread
 
exbe profile image
exbe

I am sorry, but do you understand that refactoring is not supposed to change architecture of an app? At least I call it re-work / re-write / re-fit. It usually insane amount of work for mid-sized codebase.

If architecture doesn't fit and it is too expensive to change it, I would discard it. No hard feelings.

It is not a question of "like" or "not like". Are we professionals or what? If framework doesn't fit - replace it. Customers doesn't care what exactly are you using.

Thread Thread
 
quii profile image
Chris James

I am sorry, but do you understand that refactoring is not supposed to change architecture of an app?

Says who? Refactoring is about re-expressing code without changing behaviour. That's all it is

At least I call it re-work / re-write / re-fit. It usually insane amount of work for mid-sized codebase.

You only believe this because you are indoctrinated in framework-land where everything feels big and enterprise I suspect.

If you have sufficient tooling and tests you can easily rearchitect how a system is done in a codebase that has no frameworks. Source: Me.

Thread Thread
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes

I am sorry, but do you understand that refactoring is not supposed to change architecture of an app?

o_O

Refactoring is a controlled technique for improving the design of an existing code base.
-- Martin Fowler - Refactoring

Thread Thread
 
exbe profile image
exbe

Design != architecture

Also, refactoring supposed to improve one and only one quality only - maintainability.

Please continue reading and understanding Martin Fowler. I would also recommend to check out Uncle Bob's thoughts on it.

Thread Thread
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes

I have now decided that you're trolling me to ensure that I don't get any work done today.

But in case you're not, or anyone wants to take you seriously:

martinfowler.com/bliki/DefinitionO...

and

martinfowler.com/bliki/Refactoring...

Thread Thread
 
exbe profile image
exbe

If you so like Mr. Fowler, it will be good for anyone to understand his take on architecture:
kylecordes.com/2015/fowler-softwar...

 
exbe profile image
exbe

You cannot easily do it. Architecture is too big of change that also invalidates good percent of your test base (integration, system, etc). I am not sure if we are on the same page or not, but I treat architecture as fundamental decisions written in code which defines core properties of a given system. You can change it, but certainly NOT during refactoring. Mostly due to addiction of new properties and removal of others. Switching stacks from java to serverless lamda javascript is an example of architectural decision. Show me code transformation steps from one to another.
Another example is switching MVC to messaging.

Design is more flexible in that sense. Please don't mix system architecture and system design.

If you have tests, you are the king. But I would expect any good mature framework to have more stability than your codebase, btw I have seen your acceptance test.

Don't put me in single camp ;) I am not a framework evangelist nor a binary simpleton.

Collapse
 
theelectricdave profile image
David S.

Interesting stuff.

How have frameworks managed to kill businesses? was it due to having to refactor the code sitting under them to a new version?

Let me tell you my story.

I work for an online school and 3 attempts were made to rewrite the entire learning management system into symfony, codeigniter, and then laravel. The LMS was written in old school PHP 3 code that had just barely made it's way into 5.2 compatibility. The structure of the site was a loose set of scripts with a few global libraries and no object oriented stuff, relied on input globals, etc.

The codeigniter attempt had 2 super huge controllers but implemented at least 75% of the functionality before a wall was hit with that approach.

The laravel attempt only got 15% of the way there before the programmer gave up.

I got my job maintaining this legacy application and throughout the course of 1 year, refactored it to be compatible with 7.2 and beyond. Only until recently has it seen any object oriented code, which was just an experiment.

The other programmers sold the company on a rewrite by touting the benefits of these frameworks. Last time, the owner was told that we Laravel was great because it could do caching, easy APIs, database abstraction, and had an admin panel addon that would make redoing the backend easy.

None of this stuff materialized and the refactored LMS is running on a 1GB mem amazon instance without caching because it's written more like a C program and has the performance to match.

The laravel backend plugin was horribly buggy and crashy; but that might have been because we had a crap programmer. 100% of the laravel code was written off as a loss, because none of it could be used in the old system - it was too dependent on laravel.

I do wonder if the intense layering of abstractions and the scattering of tiny objects that have maybe 1 or two methods, adding up to 1000's of objects, is even comprehendable to the programmers trying to follow that ideologies.

I tried asking a SOLID devotee writing some popular upcoming forum software how he managed to trace execution in his program and he could not provide me with an answer..

Collapse
 
josephmancuso profile image
Joseph Mancuso

Thoughts

I think you may be missing a huge factor as well. A huge reason to even use a framework to begin with is standards. Everyone knows how to interact with the code and bringing on new employees is as simple as advertising the framework. They will be able to integrate nicely with it very quickly if they are familiar with it. If they are not familiar with but know the language it might take 3 months or so on a large codebase, in my experience.

If you are building your own applications from scratch and you expect your employer to higher people to come in and learn an entirely new application that was built from scratch with no prior knowledge or being able to work with it then you are going to cost your employers thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars when you leave.

You might not see it now because everyone knows the codebase but try to get some new people into it who may have never coded an application before. You're going to make their life hell and they are going to ask 1000 questions they don't need to which also takes away time, money and resources from other parts of the company. Again, talking from experience here. My first company I worked for did this and it was hell but she (the lead dev) thought nothing of it because she was the one who built it.

Bad Premise

Your entire argument is based off of the premise that a framework calling your code is inherently bad. You say your code calling the library is good but the framework calling your code is bad but you have no supporting argument to back that up? Why is a framework calling your code bad?

If you say it's because it makes you too restricted to how the framework does things then why is that bad? If you say it's because of the structure of the code or the methods you use is forced on you then why is that bad?

New Features

Also when you use a framework you have the benefit of tens or hundreds (sometimes thousands) of contributors working around the clock just for you and your software. New features? Sure! just check the roadmap and when new features will be added to your application.

Documentation

When coming to a new framework you have the advantage of having 100's of pages of documentation to come through. Masonite has ~550 pages. This allows new developers to reference the docs instead of ask all those questions. Noone needs to fire off a slack message "how do you set a session again? I can't figure it out".

They can:

* Read the docs
* Check stack overflow questions
* Read community articles about how others did it.
* join official lines of community like framework discords, slacks, email lists etc.

There is much more to using a framework than being forced to code a certain way.

Collapse
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes

Hey Joseph - thanks for your detailed response, and for sharing your experiences. This is great. My experiences obviously differ to yours, but that's being human I guess.

Bad Premise

Why is having my code called by the framework 'bad'? Fair question, and I don't really address it. In a sense, isn't all code being 'called' from something else? Called by a compiler, called by an interpreter... called by the operating system. Something else is providing the environment for what I'm writing.

I guess my objection to the inversion of control I experience with a framework usually comes down to two things: it's hard to debug when it goes wrong, and it's hard to redesign it to fit your needs. It's harder to understand what happens when your code gets called as it's obeying rules that you're not aware of or in control of.

New Features

But do I need any of them? What are the benefits to me? I've seen developers add these features to projects when they're not needed... or worse, when they almost fit a requirement. They will use them, depend on them, develop around them until the codebase is distorted in their favour. And then, ultimately, be let down with them as the final feature never gets implemented.

Documentation

I'm not sure this is an argument in favour of frameworks, or of documentation. Good libraries have good documentation too.

Collapse
 
josephmancuso profile image
Joseph Mancuso

I'm not sure this is an argument in favour of frameworks, or of documentation. Good libraries have good documentation too.

it's not the library documentation I am talking about but how your application interacts with them. There is no documentation on "how to create sessions with David Wickes application that communicates with the B2C part" or "how to send a quick email with David Wickes application that communicates with the warehouse."

But do I need any of them? What are the benefits to me? I've seen developers add these features to projects when they're not needed...

out of curiosity, how long have you been in industry? Not being rude but curious. Your experiences are your own and you are entitled to them and I respect them. I am not saying my experience overtrumps your experiences but as someone who has been in industry and have ran some big projects with $60M+ on the line for quite a while I can tell you that requirements always change and if you don't need that ability to send an email that was just added to the new release of XX framework a few months ago, when your boss come back and you and says:

"oh remember that wharehouse app you made to manage all those products? i need you to add a completely unexpected requirement of sending that email directly to shipping with all item details and who the shipment is going to"

Framework to the rescue because a developer coded that for you and you can easily send an email and package it up in a nice "mailable" class you can pass around all parts of your code.

it's hard to debug when it goes wrong,

But isn't that why you have framework documentation, Stack Overflow answers, Slack channels, community articles, online videos you can reference to help you debug that is not available to you if you build something from scratch?

and it's hard to redesign it to fit your needs.

I'll give this one to you. Frameworks generally can be manipulated in the sense of file structure but typically has only 1-3 way to do things like:

  • This is how you send email
  • this is how you interact with form inputs
  • This how you do x, y, z

So yes frameworks make you do certain tasks a certain way but that's not a strong argument of why it is bad imo.

Maybe it is to you but having freedom to code the way you want to code isn't a perfect solution, it has significant drawbacks and maybe that's the point I am making is that this sounds good but it has a lot of drawbacks when you find the can you kicked down the road. I am genuinly curious on your opinion this time next year or 2 years from now or even when you switch employers.

I will be following up with you then 😈

Thread Thread
 
codiiv profile image
Jay

Dito!

Collapse
 
panta82 profile image
panta82

Your node.js implementation doesn't sanitize static file path, allowing an attacker to load any file from disk. Framework would have likely prevented that :)

That said, I also prefer to plug in individual libraries into my own architecture rather than hack around some framework's quirks or, God forbid, try to glue several of them together. Especially in the node ecosystem, which lacks real batteries included mega-frameworks a-la .NET.

Your approach in that todomvc code of doing everything from scratch is going a bit too far for my taste, though.

Collapse
 
gypsydave5 profile image
David Wickes

Your node.js implementation doesn't sanitize static file path, allowing an attacker to load any file from disk. Framework would have likely prevented that :)

Totally! It's definitely going too far. I'd probably add in a routing library too.

I'd love to see a pull request to add your Node implementation if you're up for it!

Collapse
 
panta82 profile image
panta82

Sorry, it's not worth fixing IMO.

A framework that parses incoming requests and calls your code is exactly the right choice for the problem of responding to web requests at multiple endpoints. Not for every problem, but for this one, yes.

Some comments may only be visible to logged-in visitors. Sign in to view all comments.