[o11c]

> high_impact is not a “library”, but rather a framework. It's an empty scaffold, that you can fill. You write your business logic inside the framework.

I normally phrase this in a much more negative way: a "framework" is simply a "library" that does not place nice with others. It's good to hear a sensible positive phrasing for once.

[mmoskal]

The way I heard it described is that you call the library while the framework calls you.

[grecy]

I studied Software Engineering, but never quite grasped the difference between a Library and a Framework until I started my first job developing with Web Objects.

It is a joy to use such a rich and well thought out Framework that really does do 99% of everything you need. Adding in your own stuff is about the easiest development I've ever done, and it just works. It was magic, and I miss using it.

[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

I do still think it's negative.

My ideal framework is a library or set of cooperating libraries on the inside, with as little framework as possible.

e.g. Qt is a framework. Qt "calls you". But you can run the QPainter code without starting the Qt event loop or thinking too hard about QObjects. You should ideally be able to use the event loop without buying into signals and slots, though it won't be as ergonomic.

It's not always possible, it's not always worth it, but everything else being equal, I'd rather have no framework at all.

(For game engines I understand why a little framework is necessary - When you're talking about compiling to a weirdo platform like phones or consoles, the engine must also be involved in your build process and sometimes even libc shit. So you can't just make a Win32 exe that is a PlayStation game.)