> A library is something you call.
> A framework is some kind of application scaffolding that normally calls you.
I think I broadly agree with this. In essence, libraries don't impose an application-level life cycle. Frameworks, generally, do.
The rest of the article, I don't know….
The most successful, long-running app I maintain has a mini-framework that allowed me to assemble what I need piecemeal rather than relying on any off-the-shelf framework that would have been obsoleted several times over in the seventeen-year lifespan of this code.
I guess about one in three things I do in it require me to dip into my framework code to look at it, but this is mostly to remember how it works! About one in five things have required me to make a small progressive change.
Twice in its lifetime a core component has been swapped out (mailer and database library).
And twice in its lifetime, because it is beginning to converge on a general web framework, I have considered porting the code out of it and into a general framework, which might make it easier to hand over. One day, I suspect, something will break compatibility in a way that makes that the sensible route, but the code works, fast, has a pretty obvious set of abstractions, and there are implicit examples of everything it can do in everything it already does.
Almost all articles like this start out with "here is a thing I claim is a generalised problem that I am sure you should not do", that is a well-meaning but false generalisation, and is then caveated to the point where no new point is being made.
Underneath they are always: don't write bad code. If you do, learn from it.
If I'd followed the advice of this article when I started this project, I would by now have rewritten the entire thing more than once, for little gain.
Much more concise and much more sensible: consider whether your additional levels of abstraction have value.
But do mini frameworks have value? Sure they do, especially if there is setup and teardown that every function needs to do.
He has functionally neutered Congress. It is almost completely meaningless and it is operating without an independent Speaker.
I think he could succeed in principle re: Mount Rushmore, to be honest. I think eventually people will cave in and agree to do it, and then they will just pray to cholesterol that they can wait it out.
The day will come when we ban Steve Bannon, Elon Musk and JD Vance from the UK, and I think for the first two at least, the day is getting closer.
(I personally expect Vance to be banned from the UK - along with Denmark and Greenland - as soon as he is no longer VP. But then I suspect his days of international travel will end then more generally.)
But since diplomacy requires proportionality, maybe we start with Bannon, or Nick Fuentes, or Andrew Auernheimer. (They really should be banned from travel here like Matthew Heimbach, Richard Spencer, Don Black and Mark Weber already are.)
I don't think Dubya has been in Europe since his presidency, in 2011 he famously cancelled a speech in Switzerland because a human right groups called for his arrest for war crimes..
I don't understand how Trump was ever allowed back into the UK on the basis of his criminality (e.g. a persistent offender who shows particular disregard for the law).
It'd be awkward to ban Vance as he's the Vice President so covered by the Vienna Convention. The others, I'm quite surprised they haven't been banned already, especially after Elon Musk quite literally attempted to incite violence on the streets of the UK.
Bannon is a convicted criminal money-launderer and fraudster; we ban such people all the time (and so do other countries). But he's also agitating against UK interests (and interfered in our politics before).
Musk has literally called for violence on our streets; we ban people who do that too. We should consider banning foreigners who appear to be funding political activity here.
Vance is actively acting against the interests of the UK and EU (actively agitating against political union) in a way that benefits our adversaries, and he lionises neo-nazis.
A general atmosphere that we sometimes ban white nationalists and neo-nazis when they actively provoke violence or hatred or illegally interfere in our politics to destabilise the country?
Oh no, I'm sorry if this is upsetting or surprising to anyone!
Seriously: Vance will be persona non grata when this is over. The list of countries that should ban him is longer than the one I made (Germany should, for example). The list of countries he won't risk visiting is probably longer still. But then I think he won't risk leaving the USA at all after this is all over. And nor should he.
And as others have observed, Musk has actively attempted to foment violence in the UK; people get banned from other countries (including the USA) for that all the time.
Your country is being 'destabilized' by your own government refusing to address popular concerns. No amount of bad speech can make people extremist on its own.
Instead of addressing the underlying issues causing societal destabilization, just as countless failed governments have before, your government is focused on doubling down and making people shut up about it.
Yes, a lot of these people are bigots or cranks. But people living in well-run countries don't listen to bigots and cranks. They aren't a problem. People start listening to bigots and cranks when nobody else will listen to them. Instead of curing the disease you're treating the symptoms. Silencing people to maintain public order and harmony is the siren song of every failing authoritarian government there's ever been.
> Instead of curing the disease you're treating the symptoms.
Banning criminals and neonazis who act against our nation's interests is a simple matter of sovereignty and I hope we continue to do it despite your and JD Vance's opinions; it's a right the nation reserves.
> No amount of bad speech can make people extremist on its own.
This is pie-in-the-sky fantasy. It's just not true at all.
The tiniest, most meaningless, most temporary grievance can be exploited by demagogues and everyone knows it. Including the American president.
> No amount of bad speech can make people extremist on its own.
This is pretty much how extremism and cult recruitment work. Wording this as a disprovable statement was of utility.
People in well run companies listen to bigots and cranks. People listen to entertaining bigots and cranks all the time.
I mean, you are talking about the country which listened to the Brexit crowd.
Their current situation is also another massive self own, which happened because they listened to cranks!
Most of the west has been unprepared for how the information economy they grew up with from the 1940s onwards, has been taken over.
——-
I get the argument you are trying to make, that seeds only sprout when the conditions are right.
The supporting argument is adulterated since the advent of cable television and mass media. Rupert Murdoch has single handedly been able to decide what agendas survive for decades.
> This is pretty much how extremism and cult recruitment work. Wording this as a disprovable statement was of utility.
"On it's own" is the key hinge in that statement. They impact people the social system has already failed. The type of extremism is really irrelevant; the fact of extremism is a signal that something is going wrong. Suppressing the signal doesn't actually help anything. You or I could watch 200 hours of Nazi programming without feeling the slightest bit of inclination to start harming Jewish people. You have to be already screwed up to be seriously threatened by extremist content.
> I mean, you are talking about the country which listened to the Brexit crowd.
This is a great example. Remain had nearly unanimous elite support. Despite a massive state propaganda campaign, the Brexit campaign won the referendum. This should have been a huge flashing red light with air raid sirens to the UK elite class that something had gone horribly wrong with their management of the country. Instead, all that's happened is sneering contempt toward the stupid proles who voted at the behest of shadowy puppet masters against their own interests. Even the Brexiteer politicians themselves were obviously none too concerned about popular opinion, as Brexit was obviously in part driven by immigration fears, which they did less than nothing about - vote what you will, the UK politicians of either side know better than you. Indeed instead of addressing this at all, UK politicians have cracked down with increasing harshness on criminal opinions and speech, culminating in kafkaesque absurdities like Greta Thurberg being arrested for expressing support for the wrong side in a foreign conflict that should have nothing to do with the UK, or the laughable pretense that the UK government is utterly helpless to do anything about small boat landings other than put them up in hotels.
> Most of the west has been unprepared for how the information economy they grew up with from the 1940s onwards, has been taken over.
"Since the 1940s" is an important caveat. Broadcast media, in particular state control of broadcast media, really change the way the elite classes perceived the world. By installing their own people to control the media apparatus, they began to only see the world through their own lens and to believe that popular opinion could be largely controlled via the media, because that's all they saw. (In the US, for example, FDR used the FCC as a weapon to suppress dissent in radio.) Even print media was subject to enormous consolidation and unprecedented state control. What we're seeing now is something much more closely resembling the pre-war media environment, where the "wrong people" often got very large audiences, and false rumors and misinformation ran rampant. But all these sentiments and problems still existed postwar, they just stopped being visible to the political and intellectual elites.
> Even the Brexiteer politicians themselves were obviously none too concerned about popular opinion, as Brexit was obviously in part driven by immigration fears, which they did less than nothing about
Eh? People in the official Vote Leave campaign stoked those fears over literally THIRTY YEARS and were happy to leave the unofficial Leave.EU campaign to explicitly stoke them with racist campaigning.
I don't know where you get the idea that the Leave campaigns were complacent about racisms and bigotry and xenophobia; they excused it or amplified it at every turn (while lying about everything else)
The seriousness of immigration problems remains a black-hearted fucking fabrication drummed up by every single right wing newspaper in this country over the entirety of my life.
I don't think you really know what you are talking about because, for example:
> Remain had nearly unanimous elite support.
This just isn't true. I know some people who move in pretty elite circles, City circles, Oxbridge, and I can tell you that Brexit had at least lukewarm support and in some circles (those who don't know or don't care that Boris is a habitual liar) rabid support.
> I don't know where you get the idea that the Leave campaigns were complacent about racisms and bigotry and xenophobia; they excused it or amplified it at every turn (while lying about everything else)
I'm saying that despite knowing the populace had problems with immigration, and that this was a big driver of the Brexit vote, they had the Boriswave.
Secondly, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about: you're dismissing at least half the population, who has repeatedly voted for meaningful immigration restrictions in the UK and never gotten them, as racist xenophobic black-hearted bigots. Even if this was 100% true, you have to address this, rather than just leveraging institutional power to silence them. You have to actually convince people they're wrong in democratic societies, and if you can't, you have to steer the ship of state in the direction they want, or you are building up explosive and dangerous forces. You don't get to say 52% of people are wrong, screw them, we're not doing what they want because they're bigots.
There are deeper questions involved here too: whether it is a "good thing" or not, it is true that migration in the UK in many other places has resulted in rapid and massive demographic and cultural change. In no case did this take place with democratic input; instead, it was treated at some sort of natural, unavoidable force of nature, and now anyone who has any problem with it is a racist bigot. Perhaps all this could have been avoided with periodical referenda on desired immigration levels, which would have legitimized the whole ordeal. It's likely there never would have been a Brexit vote, although the UK's increasingly miserable economic path may have pushed something like it to happen eventually anyway - even before Brexit, the UK was simply in an awful, awful position economically, particularly stunning for what was a short time ago one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Perhaps UK politicians should consider some sort of dramatic change rather than re-arranging the deck chairs and arresting people for holding crimethink signs if they don't want social unrest.
(To be fair, I don't think there's much that can be done other than managed decline. The UK economy has been almost entirely hollowed out except for the finance and service sectors, the former of which survives only due to inertia from their glory days. Thatcher and Churchill really did a number on the UK. And regardless of your thoughts on immigration, at no time in history has it promoted social cohesion and harmony.)
> This just isn't true. I know some people who move in pretty elite circles, City circles, Oxbridge, and I can tell you that Brexit had at least lukewarm support and in some circles (those who don't know or don't care that Boris is a habitual liar) rabid support.
Regardless of personal anecdata, the data shows Brexit support was highly stratified by social class, income, and education.
> Regardless of personal anecdata, the data shows Brexit support was highly stratified by social class, income, and education.
This is just not really true at all. The push for Brexit itself clearly came from the super-wealthy; it could not have happened without them. It is as if you haven't paid attention at all to who was behind it and why.
> Had exactly did Barr and Co. accomplish in terms of moving forward the agenda people voted for? These guys were so eager to win accolades from liberals they couldn’t even pick the lowest hanging fruit.
Are you talking about the same Bill Barr? "Eager to win accolades from liberals" is a hilariously Trump-after-he-fired-someone thing to say.
Have you read his Wikipedia page? Do you know who he actually is?
I'm not talking about paper credentials, I'm talking about accomplishments. 90% of lawyers in DC are liberals. Conservative lawyers can get credit for being "one of the good ones" so long as they don't attack the core tenants of liberal universalism or advance conservative social change in any meaningful way.[1]
Obama's DOJ did stuff like go after Catholic nuns to make them offer birth control, to vindicate liberal principles like supremacy of secular values over religious values. Guys like Barr never did anything like that. Trump and his merry band of chuckleheads have achieved more legal wins for conservatism in a year than anyone in the Bush administration did in eight years.
[1] It's not necessarily apparent from the outside where those lines are drawn. Bush's $8 trillion effort to blow up the Middle East was far less controversial among D.C. lawyers than Trump's effort to restrict immigration from the Middle East. Liberal universalists agreed with Bush's fundamental premise, if not his approach. Both believed that Iraq was the way it is due to external factors like Saddam, not internal factors like Iraqi culture. Even if liberals thought it was a terrible idea to go to war to topple Saddam, they didn't disagree with the core premise that Saddam was the barrier to Iraq becoming just like Iowa.
So you haven't read his Wikipedia page then, and you are too young, I guess, to remember Iran-Contra. You apparently don't even remember how Barr got the job from Trump.
Iran-Contra is a perfect example. How did that advance conservative principles? Whether Nicaragua is communist doesn’t affect anyone in America. Precisely because it has no consequences domestically, you won’t get disinvited from Georgetown parties for trying to overthrow Latin American governments. In fact, there’s an upside for liberals in such policies.
The resulting chaos facilitated mass migration and cultural transplantation to the U.S. from places where socialism and communism found fertile soil.
DC is full of trad cons who are sensitive to what liberals think. More specifically, the type of liberal that dominates the professional class in DC—folks who will happily represent Phillip Morris but consider immigration and affirmative action to be moral imperatives.
It’s just the math of the city. The DOJ is more democrat-leaning than most college campuses: https://admin.govexec.com/media/general/2024/11/110124donati.... Trump got three times the level of support in AOC’s district than his share of donations from DOJ employees.
WML/WAP got a bad rap I think, largely because of the way it was developed and imposed/introduced.
But it was not insane, and it represented a clarity of thought that then went missing for decades. Several things that were in WML are quite reminiscent of interactions designed in web components today.
This is a curious sort of hazy modern mirror image of the world of Sinclair computers, that embedded their BASIC parsing in the keyboard driver — that is to say, it essentially wasn't possible to type a syntactically incorrect BASIC program.
I think I broadly agree with this. In essence, libraries don't impose an application-level life cycle. Frameworks, generally, do.
The rest of the article, I don't know….
The most successful, long-running app I maintain has a mini-framework that allowed me to assemble what I need piecemeal rather than relying on any off-the-shelf framework that would have been obsoleted several times over in the seventeen-year lifespan of this code.
I guess about one in three things I do in it require me to dip into my framework code to look at it, but this is mostly to remember how it works! About one in five things have required me to make a small progressive change.
Twice in its lifetime a core component has been swapped out (mailer and database library).
And twice in its lifetime, because it is beginning to converge on a general web framework, I have considered porting the code out of it and into a general framework, which might make it easier to hand over. One day, I suspect, something will break compatibility in a way that makes that the sensible route, but the code works, fast, has a pretty obvious set of abstractions, and there are implicit examples of everything it can do in everything it already does.
Almost all articles like this start out with "here is a thing I claim is a generalised problem that I am sure you should not do", that is a well-meaning but false generalisation, and is then caveated to the point where no new point is being made.
Underneath they are always: don't write bad code. If you do, learn from it.
If I'd followed the advice of this article when I started this project, I would by now have rewritten the entire thing more than once, for little gain.
Much more concise and much more sensible: consider whether your additional levels of abstraction have value.
But do mini frameworks have value? Sure they do, especially if there is setup and teardown that every function needs to do.