Post

I hate hearing the word ‘framework’ from any engineer. You can replace that word with ‘overengineer’ and you'll be right about 90% of the time. You don't have to make frameworks for everything! Stop making everything 'robust' and 'future proof' while the project is still being iterated.

Former architect of very large, complex systems here (with patents to prove it): you really need to specify the realm you're talking about. Games are small, self-contained, iterate fast and don't have to be maintained, so sure. My systems? Your opinion is invalid to a fire-that-guy level.

> "Games are small, self-containted, iterate fast, and don't have to be maintained, so sure" I strongly urge you to read up games such as Fortnite and World of Warcraft, with millions of users and decades of live development, as they are 10x more complex than most backend corporate B2B architecture

Your indignation is noted. While Fortnight and WoW are impressive, my system was the local telephone network. We had... more users more LoC more complexity more legacy equipment and more time - decades more time - in market. But yeah - go ahead - prove you know about complexity.

I've worked on infra before (not telephone networks, but data networks), and at least where I worked we wouldn't create frameworks just for the sake of it. Quite the contrary, due to the HA requirements we usually tried to keep code changes minimal. This makes it a lot easier to assess impact.

Making it a framework is not required to make something robust and reliable. Plus, as noted in the thread above, this point was about the phase when iterating on the project. When working with complex systems, that would be equivalent to your dev or integration setup where you can play around.