some thoughts about libraries, frameworks, and biff

gistfile1.txt

is it possible that a framework might tend to become more popular 
than a library because it's more likely that a "successful initial 
usage experience" with it would be completed vs a library?  (or
completed sooner.)

let's assume this can happen for some meaningful combinations of 
libraries and frameworks for the sake of discussion.  to have some
concrete things in mind, consider re-frame the framework and rum
the library.

i think there could be multiple contributing aspects.

one is that it's possible frameworks provide more "guidance" and/or
there are fewer difficult things for someone to have to overcome. a 
comparison might be completing a "fill-in-the-blank" kind of 
question -- there isn't so much that's difficult to do.

contrast with libraries where one might need to write more "from scratch"
code to meaningfully make use of it. a comparison here might be a question 
one is asked where the expectation of an answer is something one must come
up with entirely on one's own (so not a multiple choice or fill-in-the-blank 
kind of situation, but rather more like being asked to write an essay).

another contributing aspect might be secondary. possibly because it
might be easier to get sufficient experience with a framework
(compared to a library) to get the sense one feels some level of
comfort with it, more people will reach that point sooner than
for a library, and thus there might be potentially more people in a 
position sooner to write tutorials or other introductory material 
(not to mention answering questions).

so this suggests that it might be more important for library authors 
to put in more effort toward having good examples and/or tutorial 
(or similar) material compared to framework authors. possibly even 
seek out folks to create such materials.

it's possible that it might be clearer what a framework might be
used for as compared with a library.

it might also be easier to produce materials for frameworks that
takes someone through a meaningful "minimal complete iteration".

thinking further along these lines, it might be that there is some
interesting value in a framework like biff. one of its values is 
supposedly that it makes default library choices for you but tries to 
make it doable to use alternative libraries. if that turns out to be
achievable, it suggests to me that such frameworks might provide value
in at least two ways.

one obvious way is that if you don't already know how to use one of
the default libraries, by using a framework such as biff, you might
be in a better position to start learning how to use such a library.

another way is that if you wanted to start learning how to use a 
non-default library that is similar to one of the default ones, trying
to get it to work in place of the default one in a framework like 
biff might be a useful learning path.