Viewing By Entry / Main
September 28, 2006
No More Frameworks Debate for Me
Well, if I ever did take part anyway...or if there ever really was a worthy debate. I saw Peter Bell's post trying to create debate on Mach ii and also Jared's comment on Peter Farrell's blog and I have decided I am going to just stay away (no offense to my friend PB). Excuse the rant, but I am peeved.
First of all, the debate is apparently over:
It gets harder and harder to be fair and open minded in a conversation about Mach-II vs MG because MG IS easier to learn, IS faster to develop with, DOES perform better than the equivalent Mach-II application, and the people that develop it are more open to new and interesting ideas and techniques.
Well, I guess it is settled then. Notice the brilliant mix of unproven assertions with personal digs. A nice piece of work indeed! So, all of us idiots who prefer mach ii should just give up, apparently we are unable to see how profoundly wrong we have been. Thanks to you for clearing that up...now I can stop wasting my time.
Seriously, I generally hate calling out anyone on blogs, but this is childish and silly and angers and hurts people who work hard and offer that work for free to others. Why do they do this? Well of course its because they want everyone in the world to use their framework so that they achieve their nefarious plans for world domination. Or...perhaps they believe they are helping and that their work can benefit others.
I, for one, have discussed my personal choices and preferences regarding frameworks but *never* said anyone should switch to anything because of my choices. I share them to help others learn from my experiences and I think I have always made it clear that you may use that information and make different choices. For that matter, I think the same goes for most people worth listening to in this discussion.
It was also always a discussion really, not a debate. I think the debate never actually existed except in the minds of a few who seem to think they somehow have better access to the answers than others. The thing they miss while caught up in their own sense of importance is that there is no right answer. Who cares what framework you use? I don't. I think Peter Farrell and Matt Woodward, for instance, might prefer that you choose Mach ii because they put a lot of effort into it, but in the end, does it really matter? Joe Rinehart would probably like anyone to choose Model-Glue, but his life will not change if I do not.
So, choose whatever works for you. If some day, it doesn't work for you anymore, change your mind. If you are really smart and comfortable with the idea, then feel free to switch frameworks depending on the project or the day or whatever makes you work better. In the end, whatever you choose, feel free to share your experiences, but be smart enough not to think you know better than everyone else.
Comments
To be fair, Peter (Farrell) started this round of mud-slinging...
I've used and contributed to all of the major frameworks and will continue to use all of them, picking the best tool for the job in each individual case. I'm disappointed with Peter's stance on this (and just posted on my own blog about it).
It's always going to be debated. People are always going to ask "which is the best?". Several of us will continue to explain the pros and cons of each framework to help people make informed choices. And there will always be flames...
I've used and contributed to all of the major frameworks and will continue to use all of them, picking the best tool for the job in each individual case. I'm disappointed with Peter's stance on this (and just posted on my own blog about it).
It's always going to be debated. People are always going to ask "which is the best?". Several of us will continue to explain the pros and cons of each framework to help people make informed choices. And there will always be flames...
I probably take some of the blame for the tone of some of the remarks by stirring the pot, but I still really think there is a lot to be learned.
Seans frameworks presentation is a great starting point, but I can't believe that the only way to appreciate the differences between Mach-II and MG is to learn every feature in both and then make a decision. Once you have learnt all of the features, you will make a decision based on a relatively simple set of Heuristics - it is how the human brain works. The benefit of these debates is that it is a chance for the people who have gone through the learning curve to share their heuristics with each other and the rest of us.
They benefit by putting their heuristics out for community review (the group is usually smarter than any one of us), learning and comparing their (often undocumented) assumptions with others of similar experience. The rest of us get a set of heuristics we can use provisionally until we have sufficient experience to challenge or improve on them ourselves (which hopefully then also goes back into the community for review to the benefit of us all).
Just my $0.02c
Best Wishes,
Peter
Seans frameworks presentation is a great starting point, but I can't believe that the only way to appreciate the differences between Mach-II and MG is to learn every feature in both and then make a decision. Once you have learnt all of the features, you will make a decision based on a relatively simple set of Heuristics - it is how the human brain works. The benefit of these debates is that it is a chance for the people who have gone through the learning curve to share their heuristics with each other and the rest of us.
They benefit by putting their heuristics out for community review (the group is usually smarter than any one of us), learning and comparing their (often undocumented) assumptions with others of similar experience. The rest of us get a set of heuristics we can use provisionally until we have sufficient experience to challenge or improve on them ourselves (which hopefully then also goes back into the community for review to the benefit of us all).
Just my $0.02c
Best Wishes,
Peter
Rereading Peter's post, I just seriously think people took it wrongly. I think Peter was trying to answer criticisms of Mach ii and why Mach ii "isn't keeping up" and not directing his comments at Model-Glue. Look at Peter's post again, did he ever say Model-Glue was anything? In fact, he said:
"Choosing a framework all depends on your needs and there isn't such a thing as silver-bullet when it comes to frameworks. I think that something that newbies think sometbody is going to tell them - use X because it's lightyears ahead of the others. In the end, MG and Mach-II (as well others) are all trying to solve the MVC problem. Many things between the frameworks work the same -- only a change of verbs is the real difference."
Does that really sound like mud slinging? I think at most we can fault Peter for a poorly chosen metaphor...but it was a metaphor chosen to explain the direction of Mach ii and not meant to say anything derogatory about the direction MG is headed. I mean if they both went the same direction, than what would be the point? Which is why I think this whole debate could use a rest...
"Choosing a framework all depends on your needs and there isn't such a thing as silver-bullet when it comes to frameworks. I think that something that newbies think sometbody is going to tell them - use X because it's lightyears ahead of the others. In the end, MG and Mach-II (as well others) are all trying to solve the MVC problem. Many things between the frameworks work the same -- only a change of verbs is the real difference."
Does that really sound like mud slinging? I think at most we can fault Peter for a poorly chosen metaphor...but it was a metaphor chosen to explain the direction of Mach ii and not meant to say anything derogatory about the direction MG is headed. I mean if they both went the same direction, than what would be the point? Which is why I think this whole debate could use a rest...
I guess I don't see where Peter F's comment were all that negative against MG:U. I think he was trying to make a point about dependencies and wasn't trying to flame anyone. I wish Jared hadn't taken it way and responded that way.
Just to let you know, I made long comment on my blog about all of this.
Brian makes a good point. Several times at CFUnited I was asked why Mach-II isn't adding built-in CS support or scaffolds or whatever thing that Model-Glue can do that Mach-II doesn't. In the end, we're doing something different -- that doesn't imply that Model-Glue is bad or that Mach-II better. People's needs are different when it comes to a framework. This the needs weren't different -- there wouldn't be the need for more than one framework? Otherwise, the one framework would meet the needs of everybody. That is truely not the case in the real-world and thus why both Mach-II and Model-Glue can exist in the same community. In the end, I was frustrated by the fact that some people don't think that Mach-II isn't keeping up with the Jonses so to say. Not integrating CS or ORM was a conscious choice and let it be know that is what was decided.
I dislike the comparision that some people make that something is better than the other. Think about this...Toyota Prius and a Viper. While one goes really fast...the other doesn't. While one gets good gas mileage (IMHO we could do better - yet another rant) the other eats gas like water. While one has an automatic transmission the other is six gears (it's six in a Viper right? - I'm reaching for the number here). In the end, the Prius and the Viper get you from point A to point B -- both cars have the same purpose -- transportation. However, in the manner in which you can transport yourself is different because of the different needs of the custom (think programmer here). If it didn't matter how you got from point A to point B, than one framework would all that was required in the CF world. Yet that is not the case...
Brian makes a good point. Several times at CFUnited I was asked why Mach-II isn't adding built-in CS support or scaffolds or whatever thing that Model-Glue can do that Mach-II doesn't. In the end, we're doing something different -- that doesn't imply that Model-Glue is bad or that Mach-II better. People's needs are different when it comes to a framework. This the needs weren't different -- there wouldn't be the need for more than one framework? Otherwise, the one framework would meet the needs of everybody. That is truely not the case in the real-world and thus why both Mach-II and Model-Glue can exist in the same community. In the end, I was frustrated by the fact that some people don't think that Mach-II isn't keeping up with the Jonses so to say. Not integrating CS or ORM was a conscious choice and let it be know that is what was decided.
I dislike the comparision that some people make that something is better than the other. Think about this...Toyota Prius and a Viper. While one goes really fast...the other doesn't. While one gets good gas mileage (IMHO we could do better - yet another rant) the other eats gas like water. While one has an automatic transmission the other is six gears (it's six in a Viper right? - I'm reaching for the number here). In the end, the Prius and the Viper get you from point A to point B -- both cars have the same purpose -- transportation. However, in the manner in which you can transport yourself is different because of the different needs of the custom (think programmer here). If it didn't matter how you got from point A to point B, than one framework would all that was required in the CF world. Yet that is not the case...
I'd like to echo Sean's sentiments that these flames will continue until the sun burns out, and add to them that without people being loud, without people adding their own color to the {conversation|debate}, and without people who are willing to run afoul of what's currently in vogue, some things (like carefully crafted clarifications that actually convey what was intended) just don't happen.
I'm not the only one who both misunderstood PJF's post and found it offensive... I am, however the one who's reaction spurred further conversation, prompted a very important clarification, and ruffled a few feathers in the process. Perhaps people will be more careful to be more clear in the future. Perhaps now we all have a better understanding of each other. Why? Because someone didn't mince words, said what was on their mind, and got people talking about subjects that we tend to avoid.
Perhaps I'll address the suggestion of "the brilliant mix of unproven assertions with personal digs" in a blog posting of my own, but it seems that to get into them too deeply here would be unwelcome. Suffice to say that I have great respect for Hal, Ben, Matt, Peter, and everyone else involved... those comments were neither unsubstantiated nor "personal digs" but are simply the reality of the situation as I see it.
In the end, I don't think that any strongly worded debate, argument, or even any given framework matters much as long as we're all able to sit down for a beer after CFUG or at a con, shoot the breeze, and have a good time.
I'm not the only one who both misunderstood PJF's post and found it offensive... I am, however the one who's reaction spurred further conversation, prompted a very important clarification, and ruffled a few feathers in the process. Perhaps people will be more careful to be more clear in the future. Perhaps now we all have a better understanding of each other. Why? Because someone didn't mince words, said what was on their mind, and got people talking about subjects that we tend to avoid.
Perhaps I'll address the suggestion of "the brilliant mix of unproven assertions with personal digs" in a blog posting of my own, but it seems that to get into them too deeply here would be unwelcome. Suffice to say that I have great respect for Hal, Ben, Matt, Peter, and everyone else involved... those comments were neither unsubstantiated nor "personal digs" but are simply the reality of the situation as I see it.
In the end, I don't think that any strongly worded debate, argument, or even any given framework matters much as long as we're all able to sit down for a beer after CFUG or at a con, shoot the breeze, and have a good time.
Jared, you are right that you are not the only one who misunderstood Peter, but you are the one who managed to lower the quality of the debate in my opinion. You seem to think that the ends justify the means. Who cares what I say or who I piss off so long as I feel justified by the end result. To me, this neither encourages positive discussion nor the "good time" sense of community you refer to. I know that Peter had no intent ot piss people off, but I cannot say the same for you since, while Peter has expressed some regret, you on the other hand have given me a long-winded justification. So enjoy your flame wars, because you are right, they will not end. But I do think if you choose to continue the debate in that manner, you will find the group willing to sit and "shoot the breeze" with you dwindle. Personally, I am no longer interested in this discussion because you managed to make it personal and suck all the fun out of a potentially worthy technical debate.
Brian,
I'm sorry that my words caused you to have such a strong emotional response. Then again, Peter's words caused a strong response from me, Joe, Sean... and yet I'm the one being nailed for it, at least by you. All I did was say what others were already thinking (and saying, at least to me) and, frankly, if I hadn't popped that bubble the clarifications that have been made never would have and ill would would have continued to bubble under the surface.
Now we have a clean slate... everyone's talking again and the needed clarifications have been made.
Incidentally, if you read the very small section of my comment from Peter's blog that you have excerpted above, NOWHERE do I say that M2 sucks, that the team wasted it's time, or that it's not usable... and it's not really debatable that MG is faster for the same request/result... especially now that Joe has ripped out the returntypes and type attributes. As for whether or not "the people that develop it are more open to new and interesting ideas and techniques" (a comment based on personal experience and conversations with specific people), I've felt marginalized and pooh-poohed in the past... perhaps it's just a matter of WHAT innovative ideas and new techniques we're discussing.
So yeah, that was probably inappropriate...
Do I feel remorse for it? Not entirely... I'm very torn. On the one hand I could have emailed Peter and said "Hey, dude, is this what's going on, cuz that's what it looks like..." On the other hand, his comments were made in public and were open to interpretation in public. What I did NOT intend was to create a rift in the community. THAT is something I DO feel bad about.
So it's a bittersweet moment for me, really. I don't like making people angry, but I don't like the idea that important things should go unsaid because someone may get their feelings hurt. Honestly, if you're going to run in the public eye you have to be willing to get smacked around from time to time... it's happened to me, and I'm sure it'll happen again.
I am very VERY sorry for the fact that this all got taken so personally. That wasn't my intention... my intention was simply to voice my feelings on the subject and that's all.
I'm sorry that my words caused you to have such a strong emotional response. Then again, Peter's words caused a strong response from me, Joe, Sean... and yet I'm the one being nailed for it, at least by you. All I did was say what others were already thinking (and saying, at least to me) and, frankly, if I hadn't popped that bubble the clarifications that have been made never would have and ill would would have continued to bubble under the surface.
Now we have a clean slate... everyone's talking again and the needed clarifications have been made.
Incidentally, if you read the very small section of my comment from Peter's blog that you have excerpted above, NOWHERE do I say that M2 sucks, that the team wasted it's time, or that it's not usable... and it's not really debatable that MG is faster for the same request/result... especially now that Joe has ripped out the returntypes and type attributes. As for whether or not "the people that develop it are more open to new and interesting ideas and techniques" (a comment based on personal experience and conversations with specific people), I've felt marginalized and pooh-poohed in the past... perhaps it's just a matter of WHAT innovative ideas and new techniques we're discussing.
So yeah, that was probably inappropriate...
Do I feel remorse for it? Not entirely... I'm very torn. On the one hand I could have emailed Peter and said "Hey, dude, is this what's going on, cuz that's what it looks like..." On the other hand, his comments were made in public and were open to interpretation in public. What I did NOT intend was to create a rift in the community. THAT is something I DO feel bad about.
So it's a bittersweet moment for me, really. I don't like making people angry, but I don't like the idea that important things should go unsaid because someone may get their feelings hurt. Honestly, if you're going to run in the public eye you have to be willing to get smacked around from time to time... it's happened to me, and I'm sure it'll happen again.
I am very VERY sorry for the fact that this all got taken so personally. That wasn't my intention... my intention was simply to voice my feelings on the subject and that's all.
Jared, Understood, and I consider the slate clean. I think we can all let the whole thing rest at this point. I have also asked Peter Bell to take a short break from his pot stirring on this topic ;)