Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
more useful options
 
PerlMonks  

Re: Tiny Frameworks

by dsheroh (Parson)
on Oct 01, 2007 at 15:18 UTC ( #641919=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Tiny Frameworks

Although I see you've already bowed to consensus, Ovid, I'd like to thank you for raising the question. Despite the anonymonk's insistence that you're stupid and foolish to have done so instead of simply following "commen sense"(sic), I find that progress can come only from questioning the status quo.

Back on-topic, I do agree with the general consensus that your example is not what I would call an (unqualified) "framework", as I interpret a "framework" as something which tells you how you should create your code and, in the process, necessarily constrains that code. (If you don't comply with its constraints, you can't use whatever services the framework provides.) My::UNIVERSAL does not tell you how to structure your code overall, nor does it lead to any wide-reaching constraints, so I don't believe it qualifies as an application framework, which, as tye pointed out, is what is normally meant when "framework" is used alone.

I could, however, go along with calling it a very-light-weight OO framework, as it does suggest and provide a structure for the OO implementation of code which uses it. The constraints it places are very few and very likely to be well-repaid with increased functionality for decreased effort, so I'd even call it a well-designed OO framework. But it's still a framework for OO only, not a general framework.


Comment on Re: Tiny Frameworks
Re^2: Tiny Frameworks
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 01, 2007 at 15:50 UTC
    Your opening statement only cheapened your post. It is important to get concepts right, who cares whether Ovid's feeling got hurt. All you said is that "yeah you are wrong but you are not stupid". There is clear evidence that he is wrong, and which implies in this case he is stupid. Not saying he is stupid all the time, pay attention to my qualifier "in this case". Moscow does not believe tears.
      You apparently missed my point, so let me spell it out more clearly:

      Right or wrong, it is a good thing to ask questions and make statements that most people disagree with. Just because something is widely accepted as true does not make it so. Even if the masses are correct, questioning their belief can bring progress, both through the questioner learning about the subject of their question and through others questioning their own beliefs.

      In this particular case, I had never really thought before about what I consider a "framework" to be and I am genuinely glad that Ovid asked the question and prompted me to think about it. That is why I thanked him, not because I was worried about his feelings - I assume that, like most of us here, he's mature enough that disagreement (whether reasoned like most of ours or steeped in ad hominem like yours) isn't going to injure him.

      And I still haven't seen a definition of "framework" from you. Have you thought about how you define the word or are you just leaving it as a vague, undefined "I know it when I see it" concept? If you don't want to share your definition, you don't have to, but, if you haven't thought about it, then what are you getting from your participation in this thread beyond an opportunity to call people names?

        always something against "the masses", always something only he sees, always controversial

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://641919]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others about the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-08-20 20:45 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    The best computer themed movie is:











    Results (124 votes), past polls