Welcome!

Microservices Expo Authors: Dalibor Siroky, Elizabeth White, Pat Romanski, John Katrick, Liz McMillan

Related Topics: ColdFusion

ColdFusion: Article

i-Technology Viewpoint: We Need Not More Frameworks, But Better Programmers

"I view poor developers as a symptom of frameworks"

It's no secret that I've been outspoken about not liking frameworks for quite some time now. The truth is, I believe that frameworks have a lot to offer. The most significant benefit that organizations stand to gain from using frameworks is a standardized way to code and an environment that is generally more conducive to allowing multiple developers to work on a project at the same time. If frameworks help to standardize how things are done and make it easier for many developers to work on a project, why have I been vocal about not liking them? Am I just trying to create controversy?

The truth is that by and large, yes, I am trying to cause controversy...but only because I want to make people think - a statement that I make for a very good reason. I don't like frameworks because I've met a lot of developers over the years who have maybe one or two years of experience building applications with a framework but who don't have a good grasp of the CFML programming fundamentals you'd expect from someone with a few years' experience. I've met many developers who aren't capable of developing anything outside the context of the framework they're used to. In these scenarios, the framework is a crutch.

I view poor developers as a symptom of frameworks. Is this the fault of frameworks? No, not at all. There's nothing about a framework that says you can't use it and still be a terrific programmer. It's the fault of the developers, for sure, and it is for that reason that I don't truly dislike frameworks. I don't think any one framework should be used to build every application, and I personally prefer to develop without them, but when it's appropriate I see nothing wrong with using them. If developers are really good at what they do, they should feel comfortable and be competent working without a framework and/or bouncing in and out of several frameworks. This is unfortunately not the case for the majority, though not all, of the people who use frameworks. It is especially true for developers who began their programming career working on projects that are built with frameworks and have never had the need to build an application without one.

You might be surprised to hear that I have a similar dislike of object-oriented programming and an even stronger distaste for design patterns. That's an extremely controversial statement to make and I'm sure that if my commentary on frameworks didn't upset or confuse the majority of our readers, talking poorly about OOP and design patterns will. Now that I've managed to get everyone worked up, let's talk about it.

What could I not like about object-oriented programming? Similar to frameworks, I actually do like OOP, but I don't like what it's done to ColdFusion developers. This is truer for design patterns, which I view as the buzzword of the day right now. The reasons behind these statements are simple to explain, but very difficult to do anything about. I spend a lot of my "free time" reading about object theory and various thoughts and approaches to software architecture. The vast majority of the reading is not specific to ColdFusion but is certainly applicable. Likewise, my statements about OOP and design patterns are not specific to CF but apply to developers in all environments. An overwhelming number of programmers, not just CF but Java, .NET, C++, etc., talk about object-oriented programming without really understanding it at all. The roots of OOP are grounded in ideas, radical at the time they came out, about how to think about software development. Most of the books, courses, and, therefore, developers today have completely missed the point when it comes to OOP. These misconceptions and misapplied ideas are magnified greatly when developers begin throwing around talk about design patterns, which is why I said that I don't like them. The truth is, I think design patterns are an excellent learning tool and I am an avid supporter of OOP...but only when they're approached the right way.

My definition of "the right way" is for developers to learn "Object Think." Object Think is an approach to thinking about the objects that make up an application and is used for object modeling solutions. The original OOP concepts were based on this line of thought but it was quickly lost among developers, as they tend to use sequential thought when formulating solutions. Sequential thought comes more naturally to most people with a background in traditional programming and, to be honest, tends to be a more natural line of thought when formulating machine solutions, as programmers do. I have spent the better part of my free time for the past five or six years studying the writings and interpretations of the architect Christopher Alexander, software architecture pioneer Dr. David Parnas, Kent Beck (best known as the founding father of XP), and a handful of other early thinkers in the realm of object thought and behavioral programming. To apply these philosophies and thoughts to ColdFusion development requires changing the way we plan and execute solutions. At the heart of this change is the need to be more object-centric, achievable via object-personification, in our approach to planning applications.

Describing a philosophy of how to model applications is obviously beyond the scope of this editorial. It's beyond the scope of an article and, in all fairness, is even difficult to achieve within the limitations of a book. My Sensible Assembly Methodology is based on these teachings, taken from Streamlined Object Modeling, Object Think, other thoughts and writings, and my architecture and development experience in the real world. Due to an extremely hectic schedule, I should have some documentation on that by the end of March at the latest, with a book to follow. My advocating a methodology (SAM) as opposed to a framework is driven by a personal belief that by doing so, I can offer developers something more valuable and transferable - a better way to think about development.

What is important to me, for the good of the community, is not whether developers choose to use one framework or another or choose to use my methodology or another; it is that we not only accept that the way we solve problems and develop software could be better, but examine every alternative approach in our attempts to find better ways to work. This idea has become more important with the recent buzz about Web 2.0 and next-generation Web applications. Simply throwing a Flex or AJAX front end on our application isn't good enough - in order to develop a true next-generation interface we have to change the way we think about our users and the experiences they should have when they interact with what we create. This is something that the XD (extreme design) group at Macromedia has been talking about for several years. As applied to software architecture, these ideas have been discussed for several decades. My hope is that now, with the vast amount of available information and the mature tools and technologies available to developers, the ColdFusion community can begin to put these ideas into practice.

More Stories By Simon Horwith

Simon Horwith is the CIO at AboutWeb, LLC, a Washington, DC based company specializing in staff augmentation, consulting, and training. Simon is a Macromedia Certified Master Instructor and is a member of Team Macromedia. He has been using ColdFusion since version 1.5 and specializes in ColdFusion application architecture, including architecting applications that integrate with Java, Flash, Flex, and a myriad of other technologies. In addition to presenting at CFUGs and conferences around the world, he has also been a contributing author of several books and technical papers.

Comments (14) View Comments

Share your thoughts on this story.

Add your comment
You must be signed in to add a comment. Sign-in | Register

In accordance with our Comment Policy, we encourage comments that are on topic, relevant and to-the-point. We will remove comments that include profanity, personal attacks, racial slurs, threats of violence, or other inappropriate material that violates our Terms and Conditions, and will block users who make repeated violations. We ask all readers to expect diversity of opinion and to treat one another with dignity and respect.


Most Recent Comments
Dennis Muzza 12/11/06 08:07:30 PM EST

You shouldn't lose sight of the ultimate goal, which is producing good, robust, scalable systems. If this can be successfully accomplished by cheap, inexperienced programmers relying on a framework that does pretty much everything for them, more power to the business that employs them.

The problem I see with frameworks is that few of them are really good and widely usable, and those that are still call for a lot of custom coding which requires good developers. Oftentimes companies spend millions to develop frameworks loaded with every possible feature, and then it becomes the proverbial hammer to which everything looks like a nail. People begin using it because it's there and a lot was invested in creating it, not because it really solves a problem.

Serge Bureau 04/11/06 10:43:47 AM EDT

Sorry but I feel the opposite.

Framework is the reason for bad programmers.
EJB's and Struts for example are awful (I have not look at EJB 3)

Companies are pushing people to use those framework that are big and inflexible.

So while thre certainly is bad programmer's, I have still to see a good framework ?

jim 04/04/06 04:00:21 PM EDT

Poor developers using frameworks as a crutch is a symptom of them being poor developers in the first place. IMO there should be licensing for software engineers just like every other engineering profession. There are way to many script kiddies out there who have learned one framework and call themselves developers - There should be a bare minimum set of abilities you can count on a develper having, and so many don't. I can't tell you the number of "developers" I've dealt with who have degrees in philosophy or english or phys ed, who have no idea what a data structure is, but have mastered basic cold fusion, so they're now "senior programmers". Until we set a baseline bar that everyone has to hurdle to call themselves a software engineer, our industry will continue to be plauged by these frauds.

Ananthalakshmi 04/03/06 03:30:20 PM EDT

Hi, Your view may be true in the context of ColdFusion Development. But, in real application development scenarios in languages like Java, .NET, etc and in building enterprise applications where the problem solving methodoligies and the implementation needs reusable and prooved strategies for recurring problems(for ex, page iteration, adopter, MVC architectural patterns, etc) instead of developing the solution from scratch for each application that is being developed in the organization, instead to reuse existing components, build reusable services, adopt proven strategies(design patterns, etc) will certainly improve the productivity of the developer and also to build quality, reliable and scalable applications which is the most need of every application that we develop.

Yes, it is the responsibility of the developer to understand the underlying technology, logic that the framework uses and on which it is built on before started using it or understanding it while working on the project based on the framework.

In real world, frameworks make life simple and more simply makes application development more easier instead of building it from scratch.

Thanks.

Jos Warmer 04/03/06 06:45:54 AM EDT

You want controverse? Ok, I will help :-). I think you are absolutely wrong. The reality is that about 10% of the programmers is good, 10% is bad and the 80% remaining is somewhere in between (and do not have it in them to become good programmers). As with many professions my guess is that this will have a normal distribution.

Since the majority of the programmer is not excellent and never will be, we need ways of making mediocre programmers productive. Using a framework is one approach (although I have seen frameworks that are too complex for this). The main issue is that these programmers need less freedom and more prefabicated stuff to work with. This might mean using frameworks, using existing components, using MDA or DSL's, etc. etc. The challenge for those that are in the 10% good group is to find ways to help make the majority of less good programmers productive.

PS: I fully agree that we need more good programmers, I just do not agree that this will ever solve our problems. There simply isn't enough potential in the world.

Mark Walker 04/03/06 03:50:57 AM EDT

It's about time somebody said it. The multitude of frameworks, "evil" wizards and other sugar has led to a generation of inept programmers. I'm all in favour of good tools, but not a substitute for good people.

Just some programmer 04/03/06 12:22:25 AM EDT

Any idiot can write code a computer can understand. Frameworks, design patterns, OOP, and high level languages are all just strategies to mitigate the problem size / complexity curve - a primary goal of competent programmers. Why has the science of software development continued to inch forward when it should have leapt? Why is most "OO" software still written procedurally (and with less skill than procedural code written in 1979)? A lack of competent programmers is certainly at the heart of it but you have to look further than that. Most business stakeholders have no appreciation for what we do. They simply don't care how the work gets done. In fact, doing things 'right' (refactoring, writing automated tests, etc.) can get you in hot water. As a result, there's little motivation to improve and grow in skill. Managers focus on short term goals that cost big in the long run. Shops that value excellence in execution and invest in their employees produce much higher quality software - and programmers.

Wayne Cannon 04/01/06 02:21:03 PM EST

While I agree with your general sentiments, reality is that not every employer can afford to spend $100-150K for "good" programmers with the desired insight and depth of understanding. Looking at the market right now, there are lots of positions only willing to pay $40-80K. For most of them, it's this level or none at all -- and I would suggest that customers and our economy are better off with the current situation, even if some of the solutions are a little rough under the covers.

I've been developing software professionally for 40 years and have been fortunate to have been at the state of the art almost that entire time. The same issues occur in many other industries. Designers of electronics used to understand everything to the component level, but the sophistication, speeds, and associated complexity have increased to the point that only a few now have that level of insight. Many now use high-level (LSI) components without thorough insight -- and occasionally it results in glitches or poor maintainability. I say that's progress, and that the important point is to design architectures (and frameworks) that can guide those that flesh out implementations into better and more maintainable results -- and that "insightful programmers" should definitely be deployed for such architectural design.

Wayne Cannon 04/01/06 02:20:53 PM EST

While I agree with your general sentiments, reality is that not every employer can afford to spend $100-150K for "good" programmers with the desired insight and depth of understanding. Looking at the market right now, there are lots of positions only willing to pay $40-80K. For most of them, it's this level or none at all -- and I would suggest that customers and our economy are better off with the current situation, even if some of the solutions are a little rough under the covers.

I've been developing software professionally for 40 years and have been fortunate to have been at the state of the art almost that entire time. The same issues occur in many other industries. Designers of electronics used to understand everything to the component level, but the sophistication, speeds, and associated complexity have increased to the point that only a few now have that level of insight. Many now use high-level (LSI) components without thorough insight -- and occasionally it results in glitches or poor maintainability. I say that's progress, and that the important point is to design architectures (and frameworks) that can guide those that flesh out implementations into better and more maintainable results -- and that "insightful programmers" should definitely be deployed for such architectural design.

Manjunath Kustagi 03/31/06 09:19:54 PM EST

I absolutely agree, one sees many sundry god-knows who writing programs in industry nowadays

Ditto on Design Patterns being an absolute hogwash, but I disgree with your dislike of OOP.. I think it's based on a sound basis if comprehended and used properly

Sys-Con Australia News Desk 03/29/06 06:16:17 PM EST

It's no secret that I've been outspoken about not liking frameworks for quite some time now. The truth is, I believe that frameworks have a lot to offer. The most significant benefit that organizations stand to gain from using frameworks is a standardized way to code and an environment that is generally more conducive to allowing multiple developers to work on a project at the same time. If frameworks help to standardize how things are done and make it easier for many developers to work on a project, why have I been vocal about not liking them? Am I just trying to create controversy?

Kevin Roche 03/29/06 08:07:06 AM EST

Simon,

I know we will never agree on this. What would you do with all the guys who are never going to be able to develop a sensible architechture that will be suitable for each application. Would you ban them from programming altogether?

Most people are not as clever as you. Without the help of a framework their work would be much less useful.

Brian Cassell 03/15/06 12:34:25 PM EST

I agree with your bold and controversial comments, and will add a few as well.

Frameworks provide a neat way of chopping things into millions of little pieces with the assumption of reusability and granularity. Yes, you can reuse an include file that contains an HTML open tag on every page you create, but what is the sense, what is saved? There seems to be some greater value achieved by "simplifying" things to the smallest element in a framework based implementation. I prefer to open a page and be able to read from top to bottom to see what the heck is happening, rather than looking at the 10 included files that just overly complicate what probably could have been right on one page.

Separation between presentation and content is another popular idea that I disagree with. Presentation is nothing without content, and content is nothing without presentation. They add value to each other. What good is an over engineered application that supposedly can be updated independently of the interface if the front-end design sucks and has no integrated relationship with the content? I prefer to begin with a graphic design interface including content, and then work the code hooks into it, respecting the interface as designed, yet adding the desired functionality.

What do you think?

Edward Trudeau 03/15/06 10:33:14 AM EST

I don't know, Simon...I kind of want to say, "Waah." Some developers aren't where they "should be" after two years of development using frameworks; some are throwing around design pattern names without really "getting it." I'm just not feeling the pain. Are they forcing salaries down? Are they introducing security risks? Are they devaluing resumes with their empty-calorie experience? Are they giving CF a bad name? Are you offended on principle?

All of the above are probably true to a certain extent, but it seems like exhorting developers to grasp the basics, explaining design patterns more carefully, and building an authentic "Object Think" mentality is the more profitable route.

Historically, the technocracy has enjoyed privilege precisely because of the difficulty of grasping the technology. This has inspired a kind of obscurantism that I see in my colleagues; keep it complex so that I can keep my job, I can demand high salaries, I will get the ego boost of being the go-to guy. Talk technobabble to the management - our way to "stick it to the man." Frankly, I've been excited and encouraged by the free sharing of information that I've found in the CF community. I get the impression that people like you, Ben, Ray, Joe, and Sean honestly want all of us to become great programmers and revolutionize the world with fun, useful, productivity-enhancing applications. So I'd rather see the middle way between controversy and silence: dialogue.

Edward

@MicroservicesExpo Stories
How is DevOps going within your organization? If you need some help measuring just how well it is going, we have prepared a list of some key DevOps metrics to track. These metrics can help you understand how your team is doing over time. The word DevOps means different things to different people. Some say it a culture and every vendor in the industry claims that their tools help with DevOps. Depending on how you define DevOps, some of these metrics may matter more or less to you and your team.
For many of us laboring in the fields of digital transformation, 2017 was a year of high-intensity work and high-reward achievement. So we’re looking forward to a little breather over the end-of-year holiday season. But we’re going to have to get right back on the Continuous Delivery bullet train in 2018. Markets move too fast and customer expectations elevate too precipitously for businesses to rest on their laurels. Here’s a DevOps “to-do list” for 2018 that should be priorities for anyone w...
If testing environments are constantly unavailable and affected by outages, release timelines will be affected. You can use three metrics to measure stability events for specific environments and plan around events that will affect your critical path to release.
In a recent post, titled “10 Surprising Facts About Cloud Computing and What It Really Is”, Zac Johnson highlighted some interesting facts about cloud computing in the SMB marketplace: Cloud Computing is up to 40 times more cost-effective for an SMB, compared to running its own IT system. 94% of SMBs have experienced security benefits in the cloud that they didn’t have with their on-premises service
DevOps failure is a touchy subject with some, because DevOps is typically perceived as a way to avoid failure. As a result, when you fail in a DevOps practice, the situation can seem almost hopeless. However, just as a fail-fast business approach, or the “fail and adjust sooner” methodology of Agile often proves, DevOps failures are actually a step in the right direction. They’re the first step toward learning from failures and turning your DevOps practice into one that will lead you toward even...
DevOps is under attack because developers don’t want to mess with infrastructure. They will happily own their code into production, but want to use platforms instead of raw automation. That’s changing the landscape that we understand as DevOps with both architecture concepts (CloudNative) and process redefinition (SRE). Rob Hirschfeld’s recent work in Kubernetes operations has led to the conclusion that containers and related platforms have changed the way we should be thinking about DevOps and...
While walking around the office I happened upon a relatively new employee dragging emails from his inbox into folders. I asked why and was told, “I’m just answering emails and getting stuff off my desk.” An empty inbox may be emotionally satisfying to look at, but in practice, you should never do it. Here’s why. I recently wrote a piece arguing that from a mathematical perspective, Messy Desks Are Perfectly Optimized. While it validated the genius of my friends with messy desks, it also gener...
The goal of Microservices is to improve software delivery speed and increase system safety as scale increases. Microservices being modular these are faster to change and enables an evolutionary architecture where systems can change, as the business needs change. Microservices can scale elastically and by being service oriented can enable APIs natively. Microservices also reduce implementation and release cycle time and enables continuous delivery. This paper provides a logical overview of the Mi...
The next XaaS is CICDaaS. Why? Because CICD saves developers a huge amount of time. CD is an especially great option for projects that require multiple and frequent contributions to be integrated. But… securing CICD best practices is an emerging, essential, yet little understood practice for DevOps teams and their Cloud Service Providers. The only way to get CICD to work in a highly secure environment takes collaboration, patience and persistence. Building CICD in the cloud requires rigorous ar...
The enterprise data storage marketplace is poised to become a battlefield. No longer the quiet backwater of cloud computing services, the focus of this global transition is now going from compute to storage. An overview of recent storage market history is needed to understand why this transition is important. Before 2007 and the birth of the cloud computing market we are witnessing today, the on-premise model hosted in large local data centers dominated enterprise storage. Key marketplace play...
The cloud revolution in enterprises has very clearly crossed the phase of proof-of-concepts into a truly mainstream adoption. One of most popular enterprise-wide initiatives currently going on are “cloud migration” programs of some kind or another. Finding business value for these programs is not hard to fathom – they include hyperelasticity in infrastructure consumption, subscription based models, and agility derived from rapid speed of deployment of applications. These factors will continue to...
Some people are directors, managers, and administrators. Others are disrupters. Eddie Webb (@edwardawebb) is an IT Disrupter for Software Development Platforms at Liberty Mutual and was a presenter at the 2016 All Day DevOps conference. His talk, Organically DevOps: Building Quality and Security into the Software Supply Chain at Liberty Mutual, looked at Liberty Mutual's transformation to Continuous Integration, Continuous Delivery, and DevOps. For a large, heavily regulated industry, this task ...
Following a tradition dating back to 2002 at ZapThink and continuing at Intellyx since 2014, it’s time for Intellyx’s annual predictions for the coming year. If you’re a long-time fan, you know we have a twist to the typical annual prediction post: we actually critique our predictions from the previous year. To make things even more interesting, Charlie and I switch off, judging the other’s predictions. And now that he’s been with Intellyx for more than a year, this Cortex represents my first ...
"Grape Up leverages Cloud Native technologies and helps companies build software using microservices, and work the DevOps agile way. We've been doing digital innovation for the last 12 years," explained Daniel Heckman, of Grape Up in this SYS-CON.tv interview at 21st Cloud Expo, held Oct 31 – Nov 2, 2017, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA.
The Toyota Production System, a world-renowned production system is based on the "complete elimination of all waste". The "Toyota Way", grounded on continuous improvement dates to the 1860s. The methodology is widely proven to be successful yet there are still industries within and tangential to manufacturing struggling to adopt its core principles: Jidoka: a process should stop when an issue is identified prevents releasing defective products
We seem to run this cycle with every new technology that comes along. A good idea with practical applications is born, then both marketers and over-excited users start to declare it is the solution for all or our problems. Compliments of Gartner, we know it generally as “The Hype Cycle”, but each iteration is a little different. 2018’s flavor will be serverless computing, and by 2018, I mean starting now, but going most of next year, you’ll be sick of it. We are already seeing people write such...
Defining the term ‘monitoring’ is a difficult task considering the performance space has evolved significantly over the years. Lately, there has been a shift in the monitoring world, sparking a healthy debate regarding the definition and purpose of monitoring, through which a new term has emerged: observability. Some of that debate can be found in blogs by Charity Majors and Cindy Sridharan.
It’s “time to move on from DevOps and continuous delivery.” This was the provocative title of a recent article in ZDNet, in which Kelsey Hightower, staff developer advocate at Google Cloud Platform, suggested that “software shops should have put these concepts into action years ago.” Reading articles like this or listening to talks at most DevOps conferences might make you think that we’re entering a post-DevOps world. But vast numbers of organizations still struggle to start and drive transfo...
Let's do a visualization exercise. Imagine it's December 31, 2018, and you're ringing in the New Year with your friends and family. You think back on everything that you accomplished in the last year: your company's revenue is through the roof thanks to the success of your product, and you were promoted to Lead Developer. 2019 is poised to be an even bigger year for your company because you have the tools and insight to scale as quickly as demand requires. You're a happy human, and it's not just...
"Opsani helps the enterprise adopt containers, help them move their infrastructure into this modern world of DevOps, accelerate the delivery of new features into production, and really get them going on the container path," explained Ross Schibler, CEO of Opsani, and Peter Nickolov, CTO of Opsani, in this SYS-CON.tv interview at DevOps Summit at 21st Cloud Expo, held Oct 31 – Nov 2, 2017, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA.