Historically I have not been a fan of “frameworks”, and I have often repeated the following joke:
What’s the difference between an application and a framework?
An application is something a customer actually wants!
However, for some applications, I recommend use of an application framework. For some Oasis Digital projects, I require it:
Please, Use a Web Application Framework
My reasoning here applies specifically to web applications with many CRUD (create-read-update-delete) features, and an underlying database. The advice applies much more widely, and with many nuances and caveats, but this article I am discussing only CRUD-ish web applications. Even within this niche, my reasoning does not apply to web applications which “push the envelope” of what is possible or which attempt to advance the state of the art.
Ruby: Ruby on Rails, IOWA
Python: Django, TurboGears, Pylons, TwistedWeb
PHP: Akelos, CakePHP, CodeIgnitor, Symfony, Zend
Java: Struts, Seam, Rife, Tapestry, Stripes, Wicket Spring MVC
This is just a list of some frameworks that I am aware of; I have not evaluated all of these in detail, and I do not endorse them; nor is this an exhaustive list. For Oasis Digital projects, we help evaluate proposed frameworks, then I personally give the go-ahead to use a particular framework for a particular project.
An in-house web application framework does not meet the “community of developers” criteria, except at the very largest firms. Everywhere else, you are better off with an off-the-shelf, popular framework than with an inhouse framework, even if the latter is brilliantly designed.
My recommendation (and requirement, for some projects) for using an application framework for this kind of application is not based on a fad. Rather it is based on my years of experience as a developer, a team leader, a maintainer, and most importantly, a customer of software development.
The wild success of some frameworks (such as Ruby on Rails) has shown that they can reduce the amount of code and time needed to develop an application. That second factor, the amount of code specific to the application, is at least as important as the development time. Lines of code are not an asset; they are a liability. Only the features that the code provides are an asset. The most valuable software provides a lot of features using the smallest possible amount of application-specific code.
Therefore, even if a developer is so extraordinarily fast that they can create a system very quickly without using an off-the-shelf framework, they still have provided less value by doing so, compared to creating that same system quickly with fewer lines of code.
Another benefit of using a common framework (not a custom, in-house framework) is that this makes an application much easier and faster for other developers are work on in the future. A more maintainable system is more valuable.
Vidar Hokstad left a lengthy and excellent comment below, disagreeing with my thesis. It turns out that I mostly agree with Vidar, and it sounds like he and I have been through many of the same experiences with poor application frameworks. There are a lot of things an application framework can do wrong, and sadly, many of them take the opportunity to do so. In-house frameworks created by “architecture astronauts” seems to be especially prone to these defects:
- All-or-nothing: Some frameworks intentionally or accidentally make it hard to replace a section of the framework. Don’t use these. Use a framework instead that has a “library” philosophy, such that you are readily choose to use some parts but not others.
- Just Different: There are frameworks which offer an API wrapper around the underlying mechanisms, which isn’t really any better, just different. In this case, different is worse. Writing to (for example) the com.acme.inhouse.servlet API is, all else equal, much worse than writing to the standard Java Servlet API. To be worth its weight, a framework API must be demonstrably and obviously more concise.
- Lower Abstraction: There are frameworks which, ironically, lower the level of abstraction of the application code, because that code ends up working around the framework features to get the job done.
- Pile of Pieces: There are frameworks in which it is necessary to shred your application in to a pile of pieces, and then wire those pieces together with configuration files. This is sometimes useful, but often makes the application harder to understand, not easier, especially if there are extensive “XML pushups” involved. (I’m looking at YOU, Struts!) Instead, choose a framework with convention-over-configuration, and one which offers but does not require manual wiring.
- Keyhole Database Access: If you find you mostly use a frameworks’ DB access features, and as a result you have short, easy to change code, then keep it. But if you find you use extensive SQL to work around lots of framework issues, throw it out. If a framework intentionally makes it hard to reach to the underlying SQL access, throw it out now.
- No Source: If someone proposes a framework for which you won’t have source code, laugh. Aloud. If this gets you fired, then it has set you on a path to find employment at a more enlightened organization.
- Exceptionally Bad Exception Handling: Java frameworks are especially prone to issues with exception handling, in which the framework code “eats” exception details.
In summary, pick up a framework and use it to get your application up and running quickly, but don’t be stupid. Do what makes sense locally for your project over time. It is a win to use an application framework to reach “1.0” functionality, even if you end up removing or swapping out parts of it later.