Go, frameworks, and Ludditry

Dave Cheney · · 1780 次点击 · · 开始浏览    
这是一个创建于 的文章,其中的信息可能已经有所发展或是发生改变。

A topic that has weighed on my mind recently is the dichotomy of frameworks vs. libraries in the Go community.

Is the prevailing stance against complex frameworks a rejection of this purported labour saving automation, or an enlightened position that has weighed the pro’s and cons and found the costs of a framework based approached outweighs the benefits ?

A framework calls your code, you call a library.

If you want to call net/http a framework under that definition, go for it. You can win that argument, but don’t let it fool you into thinking that this is the exception that proves the rule.

Frameworks, if they communicate with your code in simple terms are tone deaf. Unable to express the intent that they have been asked to pass on to you, they force you to glean meaning from their obscure requests via processes akin to psychic divination. Alternatively frameworks subject you to an increasingly bureaucratic interaction of call-backs, configuration settings, and rigid parameters.

By comparison, the best libraries are the ones with loose coupling, powered by the pervasive nature of Go’s interface. These simple abstractions allow you to compose your own grammar specialised to the task at hand.

Writing programs is fundamentally about interpreting data. If you outsource that interpreter to someone else, you have artificially constrained the vocabulary with which to describe and interact with that data.

Given these two choices, I am happy to stand with the camp who desire simple composable types and packages.


本文来自:Dave Cheney

感谢作者:Dave Cheney

查看原文:Go, frameworks, and Ludditry

入群交流(和以上内容无关):加入Go大咖交流群,或添加微信:liuxiaoyan-s 备注:入群;或加QQ群:692541889

1780 次点击  
加入收藏 微博
0 回复
添加一条新回复 (您需要 登录 后才能回复 没有账号 ?)
  • 请尽量让自己的回复能够对别人有帮助
  • 支持 Markdown 格式, **粗体**、~~删除线~~、`单行代码`
  • 支持 @ 本站用户;支持表情(输入 : 提示),见 Emoji cheat sheet
  • 图片支持拖拽、截图粘贴等方式上传