Re: API and puff architecture
Hello, Arsen. Shnurkov, you wrote: S>> the Citation . AS> 2.1 PROGRESSIVE FRAMEWORKS AS> Designing a single framework for a broad range of developers, scenarios, and languages is a difficult and costly enterprise. So, allow to formulate the thoughts more accurately somehow at last. And that suddenly you are confused. At first you (referring on FDG) said that at design it is necessary to consider as much as possible wide spectrum of tasks of potential users. Turns to the citation which I did not result and which also is understood incorrectly. AS> but specify that if progressive scenarios it covers as a rule much. ... Generally there it is told about passage from separate dedicated (mfc/atl, as an example) to as to a platform which includes different dial-ups API for different tasks. I.e. The spanning latitude is not separate API-vsemogutor, and possibility to use in one application different API from different without special problems since they are fulfilled in the general architectural style. The main drawback 3 is that the multitude of frameworks makes it difficult for developers using one of the frameworks to transfer their knowledge to the next skill level or scenario (which often requires a different framework). For example, when there is a need to implement a different application that requires more powerful functionality, developers hit a very steep learning curve, because they have to learn a completely different way of programming, ______ 3Other drawbacks include slower time to market for frameworks that are wrappers on top ofother frameworks, duplication of effort, and lack of common tools. AS> so, a current state of arguing: And, as usual - from each side looks on the For all participants I will not tell, but at least I precisely any "you the little fool" was not going to do, if so have been perceived - my apologies. Seriously, . About remaining - yes, it is difficult. Not in that sense difficult that "you do not know - do not climb and do not try at all", it is stupidity full. Here any designer API in identical conditions will be. Sense that at the initial stage it is very easy to commit errors which then and remain. Or, at the best, simply to make a heap of operation on burst. Therefore before "to do something" it is necessary to be defined, what exactly should turn out as a result and lead preliminary investigation. If such approach is not pleasant, it is possible to look at alternative - designing from patterns - but it already to . And here to be defined at us chronically it is impossible, not in the last instance that write you one and you perceive absolutely another. Seriously. Formulate at last the answer to a simple question: what key scenarios of usage at the future . I not about separate features, and about problems which with its help can be solved, a typical template "that am-that it is necessary-restriction" in last post wrote. After that it will be already possible to be defined by what to take for a basis - all from zero, the project, or simply dial-up of helpers over library and already then to reflect on architecture.