A little while ago I read a great article which described a number of reasons against using any of the RAD frameworks available for PHP. Basically, it argued that a good framework should get you off the ground quickly, and then should get out of your way. But none of the PHP frameworks did that. It pointed out that Django was good at doing just that (but that’s obviously not a PHP framework).
For the life of me, I can’t find the article now.
So I’m curious. Does anyone have any solid arguments as to why applications should not be built on top of a RAD framework? And I’m not necessarily talking about generic applications (frameworks by definition try to solve a generic problem. The quesiton is does that translate well to specific problems).
And when I say built on top of, I mean from the ground up based on the framework. I don’t mean referencing the framework as a series of libraries. I mean basing the entire architecture of the application off of the framework (which then ties you into the framework).
I’m also not really talking about rapid prototyping where the code will likely be re-written anyway. I’m more looking at long-term applications that have a specific business requirement to meet, and must be supported and maintained (and modified) for a relatively long period of time.
We always hear about why we should be using a framework. There are reasons galore:
- Not reinventing the wheel (although I hate this reason)
- Faster development time (since architecture is skipped)
- Easier to bring new developers in
- Common problems are already solved
- etc…
But I’m looking for the antithesis…
Any thoughts?
It is implied that frameworks being written by some unknown heroes who is smarter than you by default.
But as a matter if fact it’s often not true.
It has bugs, it can be messy and unnecessary overcomplicated.
Thus, having your own helper library is often more handy than using such a monster, knowing roughly 10% of it’s features.