[jonascopenhagen]

Pretty much sums up how I feel about most of the big frameworks (Zend in particular, but also Symfony and CakePHP).

The problem of over-engineering isn't just related to the big PHP frameworks - the same problem exists in Python and Ruby.

At its core, web development is about taking some user input, validating it, throwing it in a database, and displaying it again (perhaps slightly modified) to users. That's a fairly simple concept, and frameworks should reflect that.

[dageshi]

I think the main issue is that alot of things just don't remain static. You choose the right tools for the job and then the moment you're finished a new set of requirements are bolted on and suddenly it's no longer the right tool for the job. So instead you start off doing the "simple" things with over powered (and hence more complicated) frameworks. Zend, symphony, cake, drupal you pick your poison in the sure knowledge that when that inevitable list of extra stuff lands on your desk you'll be able to do it.

I've seen some horrible cases where simple blogs done in wordpress were incrementally extended to the point where they're absolutely unmaintainable, un-updatable monsters.

[blowski]

Yep, YAGNI is a great rule of thumb, but there are cases where you know that you ARE going to need it.

The marketing manager who says today "I just want a blog" IS going to come back next week and say "I want to a white paper on the blog, for which people have to register, and then it automatically subscribes them to a newsletter".

After enough feature requests, you've built yourself a crap framework anyway. At least, by starting with a decent framework, the foundation of your code is solid.

[masklinn]

> The problem of over-engineering isn't just related to the big PHP frameworks - the same problem exists in Python and Ruby.

OTOH, the "complexity" may also be "configurability" or "pluggability" with missing shortcuts. And quite often the "simple" version ends up being insufficient when one needs to tweak something: http://lucumr.pocoo.org/2013/2/13/moar-classes/

> That's a fairly simple concept

When going for pithy statements and omitting most of the actual issues, even encryption, clustering or networking "[are] fairly simple concepts". Which effectively they're not.

[jonascopenhagen]

I know what you mean, and I realize there's more to web development than what I just wrote. Nonetheless, I think frameworks such as Zend add a level of complexity that is rarely justified. Zend fans would probably claim that doing things the "right" way in the beginning means less work when you need to maintain the app three years later. I'm not so sure. To be honest, three years from now I'd rather be maintaining a CodeIgniter app than a Zend one. I'm not a CodeIgniter fan per se, and I realize that it gets a lot of criticism for being written the "wrong" way - but the point here is that simple (and well-documented) solutions often win the day.

[zapu]

Also on that subject: http://me.veekun.com/blog/2013/03/03/the-controller-pattern-...

[Osiris]

Frameworks are also very useful. They can provide a tested database layer that prevents SQL injection, form data validation and escaping, straight-forward MVC structure, and a library of common functions that are well tested and help developers avoid common mistakes.

Ideally, a framework would have some basic elements and then additional components that can be included if required by a project but aren't core to the framework.

[jonascopenhagen]

Sure - but if you compare, say, Zend with Laravel, you'll see that the former is hugely complex compared to the latter - and what I'm saying is that the complexity doesn't seem to make the code more maintainable later on - possibly quite the opposite.

[windsurfer]

At its core, web development is about taking some user input, validating it, throwing it in a database, and displaying it again (perhaps slightly modified) to users. That's a fairly simple concept, and frameworks should reflect that.

Maybe most HN startups are that, but web development _at it's core_ certainly isn't limited to CRUD apps.

[kaoD]

You know, planes are a very simple concept: something that flies. Aerospace engineering should reflect that.

[jonascopenhagen]

CRUD apps are inherently simpler than airplanes, and unlike airplanes no one dies when your CRUD app crashes.

[kaoD]

That was a hyperbole.

[SolarUpNote]

It's a fairly "simple concept", but I'm sure you would agree that it gets complicated when you get into the details. No way around that.