Management

Frameworks and Developer Happiness

 

Jake Archibald tweeted this comic expressing (I’m interpreting here):

  • There’s a difference between “using libraries” and “using frameworks”
  • Even if you don’t understand the components themselves, when using libraries:
    • there are fewer components in the system
    • the program flow through the components is clearer

I believe this is completely accurate, in that a lot of developers feel this way about frameworks, but I don’t think it’s due to a big difference between using libraries vs. a framework. I think it’s rather a matter what kind of environments make developers happy.

Devs prefer a higher familiarity with the codebase

If you write an application “using libraries” it will always feel more comfortable. It will be crafted around your biases (your preferred configuration format and form, file layout, DI and other libraries, etc.) and it will be simple enough to meet just the use cases you foresee at the moment. Over time added features will force you to make more decisions about new components and refactoring. But no doubt you will have written a framework. Did you make objectively better decisions than those working on Framework (a public project that calls itself a “framework”), who maybe were also building on top of libraries? Maybe, maybe not, but you’ll probably feel better about those decisions, and when you look at the more complex code, you’ll remember why that code was needed and forgive the complexity.

But a new developer on this project won’t have the same biases, she’ll be overwhelmed by those complexities (which look unnecessary), and to her it will feel just like a Framework.

Code hosting sites are littered with skeleton apps built from libraries that have little or no documentation and would be difficult for a developer without the same biases to jump into. And every use case that’s had to be added has made those frameworks more complex and more impenetrable. At a certain level everything starts to look like Symfony, but frequently without the documentation and support community. An author that builds something such that the choices made were obvious may be less motivated to document it.

Devs prefer less complex systems that do a few things really well.

Large organizations maintain a variety of enterprisey apps like PeopleSoft that do 1E9 things to support 1,000s of business processes, and I feel for the folks “toiling in the Java mines” on these systems; it looks like messy, unglamorous work, and where each new feature has an impact on dozens of others. I think the sheer size of some Frameworks remind developers of these kind of nightmare scenarios.

Smaller projects with fewer use cases always enable a simpler framework around the business logic, and so any Framework that you’re not already very familiar with is going to seem like overkill. And it will be right up to the point where the project becomes complex or the original authors leave the team.

What to make of this

I guess my point is that, all code quality being equal and over time, there’s not a big objective quality difference between the framework you rolled from libraries vs the one downloaded that others rolled from libraries. But I recognize that its subjectively enjoyable to build them and to work on systems where you’re productive. And that matters.

Sorta-related aside: There’s an interesting tug-of-war dynamic between developers and management tasked with keeping a piece of software maintained. A lot of the web is geared towards hastily building something sexy and throwing it away if the product doesn’t take off, and so you want devs to create and use whatever they’re most productive in. But if you’re maintaining an internal business app that will certainly be critical for the foreseeable future—and one that devs will not tolerate working on it for long!—you have to optimize your dev processes for developer turnover, while simultaneously trying to keep them happy. Introducing any technology with a potentially short lifespan introduces big risk.

Elgg’s Path Forward

 

Like many older PHP projects, Elgg has lots of problems with tight coupling, procedural patterns, and untestability; and has a very web 1.9 model: spit out full page, add a little Ajax. The good news is that Elgg has a ton of great functionality and ideas embedded in that mess, we have a core team which often can find agreement about dev principles and goals, and we have a new schedule-based release process that ensures that hard work going into the product makes it to release more quickly.

Lately I feel like the Elgg core team is excitedly gearing up for a long hike, during which we’ll make tons of hard decisions and churn lots of code remolding Elgg to look more like a modern JavaScript + PHP API framework.

I’m not sure I want to make that hike.

My suspicion is there’s a shorter route around the mountain; some modern framework may be out there whose team has already put in the hard effort of building something close to what we’re looking forward to. I think the time it would take us to get there would be long and filled with tons of wheel-rebuilding—work that won’t be going into improving UX and which provides no cross-project knowledge gain for Elgg devs.

I’m also wondering if we would be wise to ignore our itching about back end code quality for a bit and focus all attention on the front end and on UI/UX problems. As a plugin developer, I certainly see back end design choices that cause problems, but they’re rarely blockers. I spend a lot more time improving the UX and dealing with our incomplete Ajax implementation. The jewel of the 1.9 release isn’t going to be the dependency container and PSR-0 compatible autoloading; it’ll be the responsive Aalborg theme.

For me, back end refactoring work is fun because it’s relatively easy. You’re changing the way the pieces snap together, not necessarily making them work better or solving new problems. It also keeps me in the comfort zone of working mostly with code and people I’m already familiar with. This is OK for a little while but doesn’t push me to grow.

This isn’t to imply that the core team is infected with Not-invented-here. We definitely want to replace as much home-grown code as possible with well-tested alternatives maintained elsewhere. It’s just a hunch I have that this will be a long process involving tons of decisions that have already been made somewhere else.

I’m still having a lot of fun developing for and in Elgg, but I’m itching to pick up something new, and to work in a system that’s already making good use of and establishing newer practices. Hitching Elgg to another project’s wagon seems adventurous.

I also have to vent that the decision to maintain support for PHP 5.2—a branch that ended long-term support 3.5 years ago—during 1.9.x seems disastrously wrong. 1.9 had a long development process during which a significant amount of high-quality, highly-tested, and actively maintained community code was off-the-table because it wasn’t 5.2 compatible. We had to port some things to 5.2 and fix the resulting bugs, and some unit tests are a mess without Closures; just a huge waste of time. Nor could we benefit from the work being done on Drupal or WordPress because both are GPL, as are a lot of other older PHP projects with 5.2-compatible code. PHP 5.2 is still expressive enough to solve most problems without namespaces, Closures, et al., but in 2014 devs don’t want to code with hands tied behind their backs to produce less readable code that will soon have to be refactored. /rant

On Frameworks

 

Building any non-trivial app, one of the toughest decisions to make is which development framework to base your work on. And there’s no way around this decision once you realize there’s no such thing as “not using a framework.”

Even if you’re just binding together 3rd party components, a framework will be born out of any development work, and it will have its own tradeoffs to consider.

  • Will it be documented?
  • Will it be tested?
  • Will it have a community of people working on/within it?
  • Will it have a plugin architecture encouraging code reuse?
  • Will you have access to plugins written by people outside your team?
  • Will configuration be easy/reusable?
  • Will it address code/UX scenarios you hadn’t considered?
  • Will you get free bug fixes/features from outside developers?
  • Will it securely handle password and protection against XSS, CSRF, etc.?
  • Will other developers be able to jump into the project?

Developers, plugins, sub-frameworks, tools, and shops all form an ecosystem around a framework that tends to build value as it grows. A strong ecosystem can make up for product weaknesses; a trip through the Drupal and WordPress codebases will have some seasoned developers shuddering at some architectural choices made (long ago), yet that code runs great due to the work of tons of people over time. And, thanks to the wealth of plugins available, and to the continual transfer of knowledge from one developer to the next, devs who are experienced on those platforms can build impressive systems quickly.

On the flip side, there are properties of mature frameworks that are important to consider:

  • They can be slow to change, which may mean maintaining a separate git branch with your own fixes.
  • They rarely bend to support the use cases of individual sites.
  • They tend to have older code that may be harder to integrate with the latest practices.
  • They can be large; any framework that solves a lot of problems out-of-the-box will be. Microframeworks can be a great choice, but their value tends to be limited to plumbing.

Thankfully the ideal framework needn’t be chosen first. You may be better off prototyping something as quickly as possible—by any means—then rebuilding after the requirements are clearer. The danger is the temptation to ship prototypes as production systems, where they grow to become liabilities over time.