[mattgreenrocks]

Industry loves frameworks, because it speeds the commoditization of developers.

> The projects I know that were developed 'without a framework' are more often than not poorly structured...

So why not teach developers how to structure code properly? Teach them about coupling, cohesion, benefits of immutability and layering. Make them feel when modules should be broken up, and how they should do it. Expose them to different architecture patterns used in larger applications. This allows developers to make better decisions about code, both as they write and refactor it.

It seems that so much of modern day pop-programmer culture is what framework they should know, rather than how to build/choose the correct framework for their needs. Perhaps this is yet another triumph of shiny over time-tested wisdom.

People have been thinking for a long time about how to build large applications that aren't horrible to maintain. Don't ignore it because kids on the Internet are excited about ultracool.js.

[collyw]

I would like to think that I structure code reasonably well. I also appreciate that the Django guys have had years more experience than me in web programming and probabably know things better. They have probably encountered a few gotchas that I haven't yet.

And is it really nessecary to write all the update / insert queries for my dayabase?

[mattgreenrocks]

It's not about what libraries you use or don't use. (I write Rails from time to time, one of the most framework-y things in existence.)

It's about an industry that insists on re-learning ancient lessons over and over again. It believes things like "we don't need design patterns, we have Ruby!" and "we don't need to choose architecture, we have Rails!" It constitutes a sort of intellectual deference to That Which Has Been Made And Agreed Upon to Be Good Enough. Meanwhile, the foundational knowledge becomes something that is ignored or looked down upon, because it's not shiny.

I want developers who are not afraid to rip up parts of the stack and make them better if they come up deficient. This requires deep knowledge and ignoring the rabble of people who insist that you "just use X." How do you think LLVM started?