Most of you may be aware of the debate over frameworks that has been raging off and on since at least CFObjective back in March of this year. In the one corner, representing all that is opposed to the preaching of frameworks to the masses is Simon Horwith. In the other corner, representing framework evangelists and followers from all over the globe is Hal Helms.
I first became aware of this schism at CFObjective when I attended a seminar by Simon Horwith entitled 'Object Think'. It would more appropriately have been entitled 'Friends don't let Friends use Frameworks', as he openly bashed everything else that conference was about and made himself the public prosecutor of the majority of the CF expert community's opinion on frameworks. Last night was no different, as I sat in on a session here at CFUNITED entitled 'Celebrity Death Match'.
It was an open and formal debate between Simon Horwith and Hal Helms, who himself participated remotely via Breeze. The conference room was filled to the hilt as newbie and seasoned alike gathered to be judge and jury for the topic at hand. Let me summarize for you the two opposing arguments, and then tell you what the verdict was.
The Framework Opposition says that frameworks are a crutch that essentially stifle and hinder a developer's professional and technical growth. This camp says that if a developer begins his or her career using an open-source community developed framework, they will remain handicapped and incapable of ever being able to truly build an application from the ground up on their own, resulting in a pool of 'talentless talent'.
The Framework Supporters maintain that using a framework, though it is indeed a greater initial investment of time and resources, is a ONE time cost that is greatly offset by the long term benefits afforded at every level. The use of frameworks creates a community-accepted standard that takes an already robust common vocabulary to an exponential level, not only enhancing our ability to transfer and share knowledge on a large scale, but also to easily exchange entire applications and code without the need for significant investments of time to utilize. They also counter that in NO way does the usage of frameworks stifle a developer's technical growth, citing the fact that none of their own growth was stunted when they started using Model-Glue and the like.
Near the end of this mock trial, Simon made a point that set me free of the conflict of the debate. He related an account of a project he had worked on in England some time in the past in which he had 100 developers under him. He shared how it was that this large team had tried using Mach II, tried using Fusebox, and in both instances found those frameworks wanting. Then he showed them his own 'methodology', which they readily adopted and used to successfully complete the project. Simon's point was that he and his team had accomplished a large task, and didn't need to use a framework in the process. But between Simon's words lay the whole truth of this matter, the truth that finally freed me from the points and counterpoints that were tugging my intellect in both directions. This truth, folks, is this: Any application that actually works uses a framework. Simon likes to call his framework his 'methodology', resisting the urge to give it any kind of formal name or documentation, and thus disguising it in obscurity and vagueness. Nevertheless, it is indeed a framework. So folks, this whole debate is bogus, the opposition's stance is vapor, and in reality is a one sided debate with the answer to the question of the validity of frameworks already woven into the very fabric of both sides of the argument. The answer, my fellow CF coders, to the question of whether or not using frameworks is a good thing, is an unequivocable "YES". You need frameworks, and whether you roll your own or adopt a community standard, there is no way to avoid them...logic will not permit it.
After being set free by this epiphany, I then had to wonder at what it is that truly motivated Simon Horwith to take such a public stance. What moved him to place himself in the limelight and accept the label of 'framework-hater'? Is he plain and simply a rebel, one who will swim against the current on principle alone despite the direction it takes him? Or, more than likely, is it that he is simply a self-appointed sentinal of the free thinking world, fearing the loss of innovation and open-mindedness and the onset of apathy and weakness in the CF community's skill set? Finding nobody else who could see what he saw, did he then, in our defense, take up the cause to protect what it is he cherishes and believed to be utterly at stake, giving his all to "keep balance in the Force"? We are the jury here....
Back in the conference room the smell of popcorn and cotton candy filled the air as the debate was brought to an end. The judges called for final comments and then a show of hands from the "jury" as to who had won this debate. Almost unanimously, the jury sided with Hal.
Bottom line folks: ignore this debate and give the hard work of your more advanced and experienced peers the attention it is most worthy of. Must you choose a religion (framework)? No. Choose them all, choose one, choose none and roll your own; it doesn't matter. It's all good, it's all good. what IS important is that you keep striving to learn, always push yourself to new levels of understanding, and then you, like ALL those in both corners who are so zealous for their CF causes here, are right.
