Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Write Libraries, Not Frameworks

brandons.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 338 posts

Re: Write Libraries, Not Frameworks

#41

Post by hyperpape »

jvanderbot wrote: post #38
hyperpape wrote: post #33

I’m pretty sympathetic to this, as my experience with Spring has been “it’s convenient when it works, but awful to deal with when it’s not working”. However, I think to push this line of thought, it would help if we had examples of how to build significant applications without a framework. Ideally someone could provide a walkthrough of an app like that. Unfortunately I can’t volunteer myself: the last time I built wi…

If you're trying to build an entire app, you are not building a library. An app uses libraries and frameworks to stitch them together. A library brings functions, and a framework brings connectivity and logical flows. An app without a framework is an app with a hidden framework. An app without libraries is an app with a hidden framework and monolithic, catch-all, single-purpose library.

So then turn the question on its head. What are the examples of frameworks that should have been libraries?

It’s not that I disagree with you, necessarily. I’m just trying to extract a more specific claim from this post.

Re: Write Libraries, Not Frameworks

#42

Post by rhengles »

brundolf wrote: post #36
rhengles wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think all the major frontend frameworks are overly complex beasts, they're too big and can't be used as libraries - for example, you can't replace some functionality out of the box without making a fork. I also didn't find any other reactive frontend framework that could fill this requirement, so I decided to write my own. [0] It is the simplest thing I could conceive (to build, not to use - I plan to provide more…

You can use React like a library. You can even go without JSX, though nobody really does. React is also kind of odd because it includes a bunch of other stuff like hooks, even though most people bring their own state management to it. But it's definitely the least-framework-y of all the major frameworks.

I understand where you're coming from - it is advertised as the 'view layer'. But I think that templates are more similar to the native browser language - html, so it is easier to grasp. It is also simpler and easier to implement than a js+jsx parser.

Nobody does react without jsx because it is the worst of both worlds, but if React had template strings (not necessarily built-in but at least as a first-party plugin) it would be a more viable option.

Re: Write Libraries, Not Frameworks

#43

Post by leeoniya »

userbinator wrote: post #9

A framework, usually, must predict ahead of time every kind of thing a user of it might need to do within its walls. The one thing not mentioned in the article is that the above line of thinking is almost guaranteed to lead to an insane level of abstraction, which was parodied in this classic article from nearly 15 years ago: http://web.archive.org/web/20141018110445/http://discuss.joe... (Sadly, that site is gone, b…

https://projects.haykranen.nl/java/

Re: Write Libraries, Not Frameworks

#44

Post by thomk »

phkahler wrote: post #15
userbinator wrote: post #9

A framework, usually, must predict ahead of time every kind of thing a user of it might need to do within its walls. The one thing not mentioned in the article is that the above line of thinking is almost guaranteed to lead to an insane level of abstraction, which was parodied in this classic article from nearly 15 years ago: http://web.archive.org/web/20141018110445/http://discuss.joe... (Sadly, that site is gone, b…

That was good. I still use the Joel Test to evaluate companies.

Did you ever see his YouTube channel? It has exactly one video and it is awesome: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC65NUFfqjWn3y02kYYl9nSQ

Re: Write Libraries, Not Frameworks

#45

Post by rhengles »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #39
rhengles wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think all the major frontend frameworks are overly complex beasts, they're too big and can't be used as libraries - for example, you can't replace some functionality out of the box without making a fork. I also didn't find any other reactive frontend framework that could fill this requirement, so I decided to write my own. [0] It is the simplest thing I could conceive (to build, not to use - I plan to provide more…

Have you tried React? It feels fairly library-esque to me. You can be useful in as little as two lines of code: const elem = React.createElement('div', null, 'Hello World'); ReactDOM.render(elem, document.querySelector('body')); It's 35.9kB gzipped, although "too big" is subjective. I may be unimaginative, but over my last 5 years or so with it, there isn't much I've wanted to change. As a library consumer, I don't p…

Thank you! Yes, i've tried it. You can think of me like someone that prefers an old model of the Porsche 911 than the latest model - too much technology that you can't fix yourself, and that's my primary concern with the major frameworks - they're not simple to reimplement!

Re: Write Libraries, Not Frameworks

#46

Post by galaxyLogic »

syspec wrote: post #26

The best distinction I've read is: When something is a library, your code calls functions on it. When something is a framework, it calls functions on your code

That seems like the only precise definition I've seen for what is a framework.

From this perspective it would be interesting to see some rationale for why libraries not frameworks.

I would say that libraries are not the opposite of frameworks at all. You can have a library which contains a set of framework-classes.

Re: Write Libraries, Not Frameworks

#47

Post by Koshkin »

userbinator wrote: post #9

A framework, usually, must predict ahead of time every kind of thing a user of it might need to do within its walls. The one thing not mentioned in the article is that the above line of thinking is almost guaranteed to lead to an insane level of abstraction, which was parodied in this classic article from nearly 15 years ago: http://web.archive.org/web/20141018110445/http://discuss.joe... (Sadly, that site is gone, b…

  getInstrumentableClassLoader()

    Return a ClassLoader that supports instrumentation
    through AspectJ-style load-time weaving based on 
    user-defined ClassFileTransformers.
Oh man... I admire the people who have invented this. But at the same time I feel sorry for those who have to use this in order to earn their living.

Re: Write Libraries, Not Frameworks

#48

Post by zests »

userbinator wrote: post #9

A framework, usually, must predict ahead of time every kind of thing a user of it might need to do within its walls. The one thing not mentioned in the article is that the above line of thinking is almost guaranteed to lead to an insane level of abstraction, which was parodied in this classic article from nearly 15 years ago: http://web.archive.org/web/20141018110445/http://discuss.joe... (Sadly, that site is gone, b…

Most of those crazy looking Spring classes aren't used by users and are just used internally by the framework developers. Of all the complaints people have about Spring, I've never heard "these classes are too abstract" or "these names are too obtuse."

There was maybe one instance where I had to deal with obtuseness like that. Definitely not the norm.

Re: Write Libraries, Not Frameworks

#49

Post by tanilama »

I think the key difference is that frameworks usually hijack your control flow, while library are not.

But is framework necessarily bad or inferior to library? I would like to present React as an example. React heavily regulates the control flow for its developer, leaving several specific hooks to allow you control the timing when your code would trigger.

But React is an excellent piece of software. And assuming in a perfect world, if everything we interact are more or less functional or self-containing, then timing doesn't really matter, and uncertainty is thus controlled.

In the end, the lesson here seems to me is, making good frameworks are much harder than making good libraries. For libraries, you need to make sure the building blocks are solid, but for frameworks you are defining a whole world for people to visit.

Re: Write Libraries, Not Frameworks

#50

Post by brundolf »

hyperpape wrote: post #33

I’m pretty sympathetic to this, as my experience with Spring has been “it’s convenient when it works, but awful to deal with when it’s not working”. However, I think to push this line of thought, it would help if we had examples of how to build significant applications without a framework. Ideally someone could provide a walkthrough of an app like that. Unfortunately I can’t volunteer myself: the last time I built wi…

I think you're right that people - even (especially?) those who use frameworks - should know how the sausage gets made. Though it's hard for me to address your specific wish since the answer varies widely depending on what kind of "app" we're talking about
Post reply on HN