Why serious .Net developers should stop building LOB “frameworks” which look promising on the outside and are inherently simplistic on the inside.
Indeed, a provocative title in this article. For a good understanding what I mean, you should first read my previous article on LightSwitch which is in my view simple on the outside but rich on the inside. A property which I see as a great quality but which sometimes can confuse people and sometimes raises following statement: “it looks simple, so it can’t be good”, which is for the specific case of LightSwitch completely wrong of course.
What are you doing when you don’t use LightSwitch?
Honestly, personally I can hardly imagine any longer.
If you want to build software in a predictable and robust way, you will probably want to use kind of framework approach. I don’t know that many complete end-to-end line of business frameworks. So, in most cases and especially in enterprises, software development teams roll their own framework. In practice, this means bringing together a whole series of technologies, SDKs, design patterns, etc. Mostly, this is done by the most competent people of the team and they mostly share a common property: they are quite good in “abstracting” things. Sometimes, they are so good in abstracting things, that in the very end, they are the only persons around that still understand the abstractions they invented. Since they basically bring together a whole series of technologies, which they know quite well but don’t have the complete intimate knowledge about, the eventual framework lacks often coherence and consistency.
Measuring the quality of the framework
Now, let’s stay optimistic and let’s assume your framework leads to good results. What can be the root cause of this? Now let’s suppose that the usage of your framework is highly complex (so… not simple on the outside) because, and I can’t find a less silly example, it uses and requires intimate knowledge about quantum mechanics. How will you measure the qualities of your quantum mechanics based framework? Let’s give it a try.
- The first and most easy explanation can be because your framework is intrinsically extremely good. Great, commercialize it !
- A second reason can be that people using the framework are extremely competent. For example because they have a Phd in quantum mechanics or other sportive disciplines.
- A third reason can be that given the framework’s complexity, less competent people are hindered to use the framework and thus can even not try to produce output by using the framework.
Never measure the success of a framework based on its artificial entry level barriers.
I have not the skills to provide a complete “epistemologic” analysis on framework design. I’m doing nothing more than sharing some thoughts. I promise next time I’ll write again about a custom control… or maybe about notepad which is both simple on the outside and simple on the inside. Well, I even don’t know how simple it is on the inside, I have never seen the source code