How to design a useful javascript framework

-

Based on my highly scientific analysis, there are currently 13.98 javascript frameworks per javascript developer. I've personally been on two projects where a framework was built, completely scrapped, and rewritten BEFORE THE PROJECT WAS DELIVERED! Based on this observation and the literal wasteland of half baked frameworks available, I'm sharing some insight on how to design a useful framework. Follow these rules and you'll have a higher probability of having something useful, ignore them, and well...I guess that's your choice, I won't hate you for it (OK, maybe I will a little).

Step One: Pick an existing framework

No, this is not a tongue-in-cheek joke, this is reality. Unless you initially demonstrated your framework at Bar Camp back in 2006, you should start with something that already exists and first deliver your project with that.

Step Two: Find things that the chosen framework doesn't do well

Now look at your product that is "code complete" and do an analysis of where your most common bugs happen, where new developers trip up and make mistakes, or where the code is repetitive. If nothing stands out...STOP, you're done. If there are rough edges, analyze approaches to the rough edges, and see how other EXISTING frameworks solve the problem. If nobody's solved it or if you think you've found a better way, refactor your code and enhance your chosen existing framework.

Step Three: After doing this for 4 to 5 years, and you've found better patterns or something novel, write a framework

Note, this step seems to be the one everyone skips (even authors of currently popular frameworks). Experience is important, attempting to write a framework after doing a "TODO" list app because you discovered something you don't like is a recipe for disaster. Moreover cross posting your new framework announcement across the internet to "make a name for yourself" is irritating and counterproductive.

Step Four: Write some useful applications using your framework

If you're starting a new javascript framework and haven't USED it, your chances of building something that is generally better than what already exists are vanishingly small and you're likely expending energy on something that, will not advance the state of the art by anything remarkable and is much more likely to be a step backward. I don't mean to discourage creativity, and still encourage folks to experiment and try things out...but temper your enthusiasm with reality until you can clearly illustrate how your new framework is better. In addition, be sure to look at your baby objectively...warts and all.

Comments

Dave M said…
Generally speaking, i disagree with everything Mainguy says, except this. I would add that it is perhaps better to use a framework that already exists -- warts and all -- and extend it using conventional override functionality, rather than being a "me too" author.
September 17, 2015 at 3:04 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Please use ANSI-92 SQL Join Syntax

-
Image
Way back in 1992, a standard was published for SQL. In it, the syntax for specifying joins in SQL Database was finally standardized. This was a good thing because (for folks who've been doing this a while), trying to decode the vagaries of how various Databases handled outer joins could drive you bonkers yielding different results depending on the parse order of things in the from and where clauses. Unfortunately, some DBMS vendors took a while to adopt this standard (Oracle didn't support it until 2001), but at this point if you're using a major RDBMS and NOT using it, you're probably mired in a tradition or habit that bears changing. As an example of what I'm describing, here are some examples of what I mean. Old School (no standard syntax + implementation and evaluation of predicates varied by vendor [and query]): select * from customer, order where customer.customer = order.customerid ANSI way (agreed to standard, predicate evaluation has some rules ...
Read more

The difference between Scalability, Performance, Efficiency, and Concurrency explained

-
I thought I'd give some explanation of the difference between scalability, performance, Efficiency, and concurrency. To make things more accessible (and because I'm watching a cooking show on TV) I'm going to use a baking metaphor to help explain the differences. In our case, the system in question is baking cookies for consumers. Scalability, is how well something responds to adding more resources. If we can double our capacity by doubling the number of resources, we've got linear scalability. In our baking example, if we add more ingredients, we can scale to a larger number of cookies. To contrast with our other metrics, this doesn't actually increase the performance of creating a single cookie (they still take 10 minutes to bake), and the efficiency is the same (we just have more capacity). We also cannot bake more cookies in a fixed time period, but over a larger time period we can produce more cookies. Performance is how fast something can get done, u...
Read more

the myth of asynchronous JDBC

-
Image
I keep seeing people (especially in the scala/typesafe world) posting about async jdbc libraries. STOP IT! Under the current APIs, async JDBC belongs in a realm with Unicorns, Tiger Squirrels, and 8' spiders. While you might be able to move the blocking operations and queue requests and keep your "main" worker threads from blocking, jdbc is synchronous. At some point, somewhere, there's going to be a thread blocking waiting for a response. It's frustrating to see so many folks hyping this and muddying the waters. Unless you write your own client for a dbms and have a dbms that can multiplex calls over a single connection (or using some other strategy to enable this capability) db access is going to block. It's not impossible to make the calls completely async, but nobody's built it yet. Yes, I know ajdbc is taking a stab at this capability, but even IT uses a thread pool for the blocking calls (be default). Someday we'll have async databa...
Read more