I realize that this may be subjective but I truly need an answer to this and I can't seem to find anything close enough to it in the rest of the Forum. I have read some folks say that the framework (any MVC framework) can obscure too many things while others say that it can promote good practices. I realize that frameworks are great for a certain level of programmer but what about individuals starting out? Should one just focus on the language or learn them together?
I think web development is way more than anyone grasps when they first start getting into it! Read this and know that it is all optional...but required to be really good at what you do.
I suggest that you spend time learning your language first. I would suggest learning C# simply because it is vastly more marketable and it is usually directly supported in most of MS products. By learning C# - programming in ASP.NET, console apps, servers, services, desktop apps, etc. will all be within your reach. You can program for most of the MS products as well as on many Linux type platforms.
Once you have this down then you can move to programming for the web as programming for the web has some intricacies that most other environments don't have. Concepts such as sessions, caching, state management, cross site scripting, styling, client side vs server side programming, browser support, how HTTP works, get vs post, how a form works, cookies, etc. are all at the top of the list of things to learn separately not to mention learning the ASP.NET base frameworks and namespaces.
Once you have the programming language down and then the concepts of web programming I suggest that you pause and learn database design. Don't worry about performance just yet...try to first learn good design. Performance will come next. A good start for you is Access (blasphemy I know). It is easy for a beginner to work with. And it translates into a more robust platform such as SQL Server easily. Learn at the very least some SQL...but I suggest that you learn as much as your stomach can handle. I heard someone say that SQL is like the assembly language of the database. The number one thing that slows an application to a halt is piss poor database design and poor queries. Once you have this knowledge - stuff it away in the back of your mind and take a look at a good ORM. NHybernate is probably best at the moment but is more complex that the basic learner needs. For that reason I currently suggest getting LINQ to SQL up and running as it is SUPER EASY to work with. Then look at Entity Framework (although I still think it sucks...and you should wait till EF 2.0...ERRRRR...now 4.0 released with .net 4.0). Then NHybernate.
Now is the time to start to understand the infrastructure that is required by web development. You may bump your head against this as you learn some of the web programming stuff. But you need to understand the basics of DNS, IIS, load balancers, sticky routing, round robin, clustering, fault tolerance, server hardware setup, web farms, cache farms (MemCached Win32, Velocity), SMTP, MSMQ, database mail queuing, etc. Many people may say you don't need this. That there will be some knowledgeable network admin to help you out here. However they generally know things that impact them...not you. The more you know here the more valuable you will be to the company that hires you.
Now you can get into the details of best practices and design patterns. Learn about the basics such as repository pattern, factory pattern, facade pattern, model view presenter pattern, model view controller pattern, observer pattern, and various other things. Follow Martin Fowler and others for suggestions here. Take a look at concepts such as inversion of control, dependency injection, SOLID principle, DRY, FIT, test driven design, and domain driven design, etc. Learn as much as you can here before moving to the next step.
NOW you can think about frameworks! Start by creating a basic application with ASP Classic (comes with IIS for free!). This will give you a flavor of a no frills web development environment. Take a look at ASP.NET web forms (briefly) to see how MS attempted to make things easier by hiding all the complex stuff (which you now know how to manage on your own from your readings of the above materials!!!). Now you no longer need ASP.NET Web Forms. Move immediately to ASP.NET MVC. The MVC framwork gives you all the power you need to create a good easily manageable web application. If you build something really big no framework for pure web development may be able to deal with what you need. However MVC is way more extensible for such UBER custom scenarios.
Now that you have made it through the journey to ASP.NET MVC you can take a look at things such as Microsofts Enterprise Application Blocks (such as they use at MySpace). Take a look at Elmah error logging (a must have). Look at how to build a custom SiteMapProvider for your MVC site. If you need to get into searching stuff understand Lucene.NET.
And if you made it this far...you are ready to figure out the rest on your own as it comes up! Have fun. There is a lot of room in this space for a person with some understanding of all of the above concepts.
You'll be using SOME sort of framework. The question is, what level do you want to learn at?
You'll probably not care to learn about asynchronous I/O and mutlithreaded vs. select/poll styles of web servers.
So then, your language of choice is going to provide a layer atop this, the languages preferred "web interface" API. For Java it's Servlets, the lowest level you'd typically code at for server side web applications.
You should find what this "lower level" layer is in your language and learn the API at least. You should know basic HTTP like status codes, cookies, redirects, POST vs GET, URL encoding, and possibly what some of the more important headers do.
You'll then come to appreciate what these higher level frameworks bring to the table, and be better able to evaluate what is the appropriate level of abstraction for your needs/project.
Web development requires a certain degree of organization, since it relies so much on separation of concerns. The browser, for example, is designed to display data and interact with the user. It is not designed to lookup data from a database, or perform analysis. Consequently, a web development framework can help provide services that are needed to make the browser experience a practical one.
The nice thing about employing a platform is that it will provide core components essential to the making of any web application that you won't (and shouldn't) have to think about, such as user membership, for example. Many of the design decisions and deep thinking about how to implement these services has already been done for you, freeing you to focus on what you actually want you application to do.
Of the available frameworks, I find that frameworks that implement the MVC (model-view-controller) pattern are very practical. They clearly organize different functions of web development, while giving you full control over the markup presented to the browser.
All that said, you will need some fundamental skills to fully realize web development, such as HTML, CSS, and a core programming language for the actual underlying program, whether you use a platform or not.
I don't think I agree with the Andrew. I don't think learning C is a pre requisite for web development. In fact, learning something like Javascript, Action-script or PHP is often easier due in large part to the vast numbers of sites and tutorials available, and are enough to expose you to the fundamentals of pretty much every programing language. Variable, Conditions, Loops and OOP. I just think learning C# introduces a lot of learning that isn't really relevant to web development such as pointers and memory management.
As for wether you should learn a framework first? Definitely not. Never ever. You need to be able to stand on your own two feet first and be comfortable with HTML/CSS, Server Side Scripting (PHP/ASP/Python/Ruby whatever) and love it or loathe it, but you're going to have to have a decent understanding of Flash and Action-script.
The order in which you learn these is entirely up to you. But my learning plan would go like this...
Start with HTML. It takes about half an hour to get the basics (it's made up of tags with attributes, end of lesson 1) and it's good to get it out of the way first.
Then start leaning CSS. You'll get the basics again, very quickly. But CSS is a minefield so expect to spend the rest of your life figuring it out.
Next up Action-script. Most people wouldn't agree with me, but bear with me. HTML and CSS aren't programming languages. Action-script is. And learning a programing language for the first time is difficult and tedious. The advantage Action-script has over most other languages is that the results are very visual. It's enjoyable to work with and you can sit back and take pride in your accomplishments at regular intervals. This isn't possible with server-side scripting languages or Javascript and there's a whole host of stuff you need to learn to get server side scripting up and running. You can't build space invaders in with PHP for example.
I've changed my thinking here. I would encourage beginners to ignore ActionScript and focus on Javascript. I still believe that being able to see stuff on screen quickly is a good motivator, but I would encourage people to look at canvas tag tutorials and frameworks. Javascript has come a long way since 2009, and is now the lingua franca of programming, so it's incredibly useful. My initial point about HTML and CSS not being programming languages still stands.
Then, you can start with your server side language. At the same time, you're going to have to figure out the database stuff. I recommend PHP and MySQL because it's free.
Again, I've changed my thinking here. I would encourage beginners to use Javascript on the backend (Node.js), and split their database learning between relational databases and noSql solutions such as Mongo.
Then.... learn your framework. Or better yet, roll your own. That's what I've been doing and it's supercharged my learning.
If you're getting into web development, You HAVE to know how those building blocks work. You don't have to be an expert in all the areas, but you should try to become an expert in at least one of them. If you start learning a framework before you get the fundamentals you'll be in a sticky middle ground where you don't understand why things don't work which will infuriate you, and anyone who has to work with you.
you should learn how to use framework because it would be helpfull for u in the future also it is easier to learn.
MVC will help you a lot .. trust me ... i was developing web project not using mvc and it is like mess ... (in the past there are no well know mvc and i never heard about it)
Short version: yes, and then some.
FWIW : This more generic answer may be of use to someone out there.
What: Frameworks take out tedium of using boiler-plate code again and again. They hide complexity and design issues under wizards and conventions. They also use special libraries, design patterns etc. in ways that are far from obvious to a beginner.
So using a framework is good for getting things done without knowing exactly how - like using an ATM without knowing the internals. You just add your code bits in certain places and things 'just work'.
HTML > CSS > Ruby > SQL > Rails/Javascript framework > Libraries would make for a good learning track. Rest you learn as you go along by being curious, hanging out on forums or as extended learning as need arises.
HOW: The problem starts the minute you step outside simple text-book examples (i.e. when you try to get it to do something even a bit different).
Decoding cryptic error messages when it seems like you've done everything right but things still don't work. Searching on error strings in forums may help out. Or just re-starting from scratch.
Reading up articles and books, videos, trial-and-error, hard-work, search-engines, stackoverflow/forums, local gurus, design articles, using libraries, source-code browsing are a good way to climb the learning curve gently and on a requirement basis.
Working-against-the-framework is the number one problem for beginners. Understanding what the framework expects is key to avoiding white-hair in this phase. Having enough insight to manually do what the framework automates may help reduce this second-guessing effort.
WHY: For more advanced debugging/design, it's good to know what the framework is doing under the hood esp. when things don't work as you planned. Initially you can take the help of local-gurus or forum gurus who've already done the hard work. Later as you go deeper you can take on more of that role. For example there's a "rebuilding rails" book which looks under the hood of Ruby on Rails.
Note: Some of the tips are oriented towards Ruby/Rails but you can easily substitute your favourite language/framework instead.
Related
After speaking with developers, I have questions, "What framework do you use with your app?" and "What web technologies are you using on the front end?".
Therefore, in order to answer the exact question they are asking, what is the difference between "frameworks" and "technologies" in this context? How would I answer these two questions differently or do they both have the same answer?
For example, I thought that in a MEAN stack application, the "technologies" I am using are mongoDB, expressJS, angularJS, and nodeJS. What would be the "framework".
Frameworks are a subset of technologies. All computer languages are technologies. All frameworks are written in computer languages to solve specific problems. The MEAN stack consists of many technologies. NodeJS is a web application framework, that allows JavaScript to run on the server. Express is used to create APIs. Angular is typically used on the client side to provide the front end experience. MongoDB is a technology but not a framework, its a piece of software that allows an application to persist data.
Using your example of the MEAN stack, one could argue that a framework such as AngularJS is a subset of a given technology stack. I often think of a framework as a set of tools for ...... you know what, I think an analogy might better express my thoughts on this.
an analogy
construction = development?
Think of a general contractor (you know, the person(s) you call to come fix things around your house/work). So development is a lot like handy-man/construction work. They fix things, we fix things. They make you a new house or kitchen counter, we make applications... yada yada yada
components
Now think about the separate components in making a house:
plumbing
electric
framing
dry wall
roofing
finish work
I'd equate those to the separate things we use in development to serve our end goal:
database
services
client UI
the tools
Just like a plumber has special tools for his job, I view a framework like AngularJS as just another tool to serve the specialty of Client-side UI work. Bootstrap is a styling framework/tool just like a paint-roller is to finish work. The CSS or the Javascript are the nails and screws, but you can't build just a house with nails and screws, you need tools and methodologies to assemble your parts.
I dunno if that is the best analogy, but it's the one I've used for ages in explaining to laypersons what it is I do for my work and it seems to convey the point fairly well.
in closing...
... I think you can get away with the line of thinking that technology encompasses any frameworks you use. And by mentioning a framework (that they are familiar with) you are implying the technology.
I'm interested in creating a basic web application (for learning, but I want to finish within a few months), and I've read that using a web framework can make that task much easier.
After reading about different frameworks online, it seems to me that using frameworks would hide a lot of detail on they work. I fear that if I use a framework, I won't really know how my website is running.
Is it important to understand how frameworks do what they do, or am I worrying too much? (eg. I don't know how the Linux kernel works, or the C compiler, etc.)
Even if you don't have a particular interest in web frameworks, I would say it's good to play with a few and then crack them open if only for the exposure to new design patterns and solutions that can be applied anywhere in development. (MVC in particular when talking about most web frameworks)
It is (to some extent) important to understand how frameworks work, but you'll never learn that without using them.
So, start using some framework and you'll get basic understanding of it. And then, if you have interest, you can always dig deeper into it (maybe even submit patches and participate in its development). But not in the opposite order.
Using your analogy, you don't become Linux kernel developer without being Linux user for some time.
By day, I am a front-end web developer but in my off time I dabble with other languages such as C, Objective-C, Python, etc. When I first got into web development the idea of web applications was just getting started.
Since then two amazing frameworks have appeared, SproutIt's SproutCore and 280 North's Cappuccino (+Objective-J). SproutCore is being used by Apple for it's MobileMe application and 280 North released 280 Slides. Both of these applications are amazing and they are a testament to what is possible on the web. So the momentum is shifting. Web applications starting to look and act like desktop applications.
So my question is this: should web based applications follow web standards, separation of markup (content), presentation (design), and behavior (functionality) or no?
I am not sure about SproutCore since I have not look at the source code, but I know that if you go to 280slides.com and turn off the JavaScript everything basically disappears. You are left with some meaningless words.
Let me clarify, I understand that web based applications such as 280 Slides is meant to have JavaScript on and not meant to be functional without it but in my day job my main focus is writing clean markup, separating content, presentation, and behavior so that our site and applications can be used by as many people as possible.
It seems like the other people who have answered so far have no idea what you're talking about.
Like me, you've had it pounded into your head to make your web applications as accessible as possible. That is, they should work without scripting and without stylesheets. JavaScript and CSS should only be used to enhance the experience. They should not be required.
SproutCore and Cappuccino are frameworks for front-end development that require the user to have both JavaScript and CSS enabled. Your question is around how we reconcile this with the dogma of the day.
Unfortunately, I don't have a clear-cut answer. I like the fact that SproutCore and Cappuccino (and probably others) are testing the limits of what's possible within a web browser. I also believe firmly that information and services provided on the web should be available to as many people as possible, given the limitations of the technology.
How you approach your solutions needs to be based on a deep knowledge of your user-base. If you're working on an iPhone app, you don't need to worry about traditional web accessibility because the experience is intensely visual. If you're building a web application for a general audience, these new frameworks are probably a poor choice (if you value the widest possible access to your information and services).
Over time, screen reader software is likely to get better at interpreting JavaScript-heavy interfaces, so perhaps this issue will fade. Thing is, something else is likely to "sprout" up in its place.
Javascript is a Web standard — certainly more so than, say, Flash, which was previously (and still often is) used for rich Web applications. In this regard, SproutCore and Cappuccino are giant improvements in my book.
The question here really seems to be how important accessibility is. And that is largely a personal decision based, as Andrew said, on knowing your users. For some apps, accessibility really doesn't make that much sense — 280 Slides is a good example of this. It's a graphic design app that's largely about visual behaviors. It doesn't make very much sense for it to degrade to plaintext. (At least, a text-based app meant to accomplish what 280 Slides does would be really be a completely different thing.)
Yes. It will be difficult at first, but once the codebase matures you will be thankful you followed those rigorous standards.
Edit: An added benefit will be portability to many web-based platform via CSS profiles and whatnot.
The MVC model can be applied just as easily to desktop applications as it can to web based applications. I don't see much reason to distinguish between the two, especially since the line is more blurred in the case of web applications.
I don't know about these particular frameworks, but a lot of web frameworks these days are structured around the MVC model, such as ASP MVC, CakePHP, Ruby on Rails, etc.
Separate as much as you can and it will pay out in the end. When things get complicated and hairy :)
I think they should. Following that type of MVC design allows for changes to be more easily implemented, provides good separation of concern, and is generally easier to understand for newcomers to a project.
If you were going to start building web sites as a consulting business on the side -- keeping your day job -- and you also had a toddler and a wife, what frameworks/tools would you pick to save you typing?
Any language.
I'm looking for a productivity superstar stack that won't tie my hands too much when I have to update the site 6 months later, or "evolve" the data model once in production.
It needs to allow me to say "yes" to the client: community features, CMS, security, moderation, AJAX, ...
I would suggest Django. Super simple to get something up and running really quick. You are using Python which has a large library to go with it. For me Ruby on Rails would be a close second.
I'd probably look at DotNetNuke. Its easy to set up (a lot of hosts will do it for you) and easy to use and put together a custom site that business's will be able to maintain in the future.
Its fairly easy to create custom modules that are specific to a business and hundreds of modules for sale (or free) that can be integrated into DNN for special uses.
Take a look at Microsoft's Sharepoint server if you'd like a pre-made framework with many options for plugging in your own code. Sharepoint is kind of a world unto itself but it is a very powerful environment.
Update: I'm surprised to have been voted down on this one. Keep in mind that the questioner specifically requested frameworks that included a CMS. Sharepoint meets this criteria - unlike straight .NET or other web development frameworks.
If you are going to vote the entry down, I think you owe it to the person who asked the question to explain why you don't think he should not even explore it as an option. You could be right - collective wisdom is what voting on SO is all about. But without an explanation, we don't know why you think you are right.
My answers are going to revolve around the .NET stack.
Use Master pages and CSS templates. This makes it so much easier to pop in a new look and feel for your customer.
For sure I'd include the Dynamic Data framework in the .NET world.
Hosting might become an issue for your customer. Questions around managing email addresses, procedures on how to quickly update the website to include the new contact phone number (different for each customer, I'd assume) Consider getting a reseller account on your favorite webhost, and dole out webhosting accounts as appropriate. There are lots of issues around this point. It may turn out to be a nice source of recurring revenue.
Build yourself a few patterns including a database wrapper which would handle all your data calls (i.e. a dll which wraps all your data calls, sets up your ADO.NET objects, runs your sproc calls, and picks up the connstring from app.config or something similar.)
This goes a long way to maintainability as well.
I would recomend going with anything MVC in a language you can undertand! Theres a couple of CMS's in python, php and ruby using that design and well... that allows you to be ready for combat for Ajax and expanding anything very fast.
This is definitely not a question that can be answered.
I prefer asp.net webforms because I think it allows for extremely rapid web app development, but I am sure you will receive recommendations for:
asp.net mvc
Ruby on Rails
PHP and some framework
Python and some framework such as Django
I believe PHP has the most pre-built apps that you can use, though asp.net also has the things you are looking for.
All of these platforms and frameworks can do what you want.
Choose between Rails and Django. They both have different strengths. I like Rails better in general, but Django's admin interface can save you a lot of time when you need it.
There's another factor to take into consideration here: what are you the most familiar with? I believe that some studies have found upwards of a 30% loss of productivity when trying to learn a new language/framework.
Sometimes, there's nothing wrong with just sticking to what you know. But if you're interested in what languages/frameworks to learn, I'll refer you to the other posts because the above was the only thing I really have to add.
I recommend looking into Grails. It uses Groovy which is similiar to Java (so if you know this already you're good to go). Groovy runs on the JVM so you can still use all the great libraries already available for Java. Yet, since it's a dynamic language with a lot of the similar bells and whistles like Ruby you can use closures and that kind of neat stuff when you need/want to. And you're not slowed down by Java's traditonal slow compile-deploy-test development cycle.
Grails is already setup with Hibernate and Spring. You can create CRUD application in practically no-time (pretty much like Rails applications), and at the same time drill down and be able to control every little details since it's built on such proven and well-supported technologies. In addition there's literally hundreds of plugins available that helps you easily set up things like mailing lists, security, AJAX components and so on.
Otherwise, if you want to set up a community site and don't want to code a single line you could always check out ning.com.
I need to create a internal website and can't figure out if we should be writing our own, or using an existing framework.
Most of the website will essentially be a front end to a database. We need to have a number of people enter data into forms. We then want to be able to show different views of all this data -- including running small queries (e.g. how many resources do we have with attribute 'X'). As is usually the case with this, we will want to tweak the UI on a regular basis.
There actual data design is not a simple 1:1 mapping of resource to entry. For example, we might track several attributes for one item as the "base set of data" for that item. Then we could have several additional sets of data.
Imagine a recipe application. You might have a recipse for a starter. This could then be referenced by several other recipes that need that same information.
I feel like this is best suited for a general framework (Ruby on Rails, Django, etc), but I wonder if it might not be good for a "traditional" CMS platform like Drupal? I specifically mention Drupal since the people that would develop this have the most knowledge using php and MySql.
I usually lean towards wanting to use an existing platform, but am interested in other people's thoughts. To give you an idea of scope, I would imagine if we wrote this from scratch we are probably talking about 3-5 weeks of development.
Would you recommend writing our own, or using an existing framework? If you would suggest using something that exists what would you recommend?
Would you consider this to be best suited for a straight framework or a straight CMS?
Thanks!
It's possible that Drupal will be a good solution for you, though you'll probably need a few key additional modules like the "Content Creation Kit" (CCK) and "Views".
Unlike other web CMS systems (WordPress, Exponent, phpNuke), Drupal treats your entries as a "pool" of content, from which you pull various subsets for different areas of your site.
There is a lot of documentation for Drupal (almost too much), the biggest problem is finding the piece that's relevant to what you're trying to achieve. Diving on to one of the interactive IRC channels can be a good idea, as the community is quite helpful and is almost always willing to give you a pointer in the right direction.
The power, flexiblity and capability of Drupal is both its biggest strength and weakness - I know it took me a bit of effort to get my head around key concepts, and I'm far from being a Drupal Expert.
One last comment: Having written my own CMS from scratch, which I abandoned in favour of Drupal, I'd suggest your 3-5 week estimate is likely on the light side.
Stay away from Drupal for any site that requires customized functionality. I recently used Drupal for a website at work, and it was VERY difficult to figure out how to get it to do what I wanted it to do. There is a lot of documentation out there, but all of it is unhelpful -- it answers very specific questions about specific issues but does not provide any context as to how you would approach building the site as a whole. If you're a programmer, using a more general framework will probably work better, as CMS's are designed for a specific kind of site, and if you want your site to have non-standard functionality you are going to be fighting the system instead of working with it. If your developers are most experienced in PHP, try one of the PHP frameworks that mimics the architecture of Rails -- e.g. cakePHP or CodeIgniter.
CMSes usually make sense when you have a broad and potentially expanding array of different content types and modes you need to handle. Drupal has literally dozens. Given than you mentioned RoR, it sounds like what you need is more of a MVC style framework. Maybe similar to the sort of thing stackoverflow was built with. .NET an issue for you?
If you are really limited to 3-5 weeks, however, I think a Rails-based strategy makes sense so go with RoR or CodeIgniter
If Drupal can do what you need easily I would say go with Drupal. I don't know much about Drupal though.
Otherwise, what you describe sounds like a data driven web app or more like a reporting app. It sounds like you might have some very specific needs or that users might want very specific needs in the future. That is something hard to get from premade software since you have no idea what users are going to request. Since I'm a programmer I would probably want to build it myself.
Funny you should ask... I just came across this in SD Time's Linkpalooza this afternoon:
Ten free powerful content management systems…
There are at least 4 more mentioned in the comments to this post.
It seems to make little sense to develop a new one with so many from which to choose!
BTW, this is neither a recommendation nor endorsement of any particular CMS.
Treat Drupal as a framework. Core modules + CCK + Views is a good start to build on.
If you're doing something that you might want to expose to other applications, consider the Services module. A lot of interesting things have been done with flex frontends connected to drupal running services with amfphp.