Does Parrot work like the.Net framework in the sense that libraries say writen in Perl can be used in Python or Tcl!
(note that Tcl is a completly different paradigm than Perl or Python)
I do know that for.Net to achieve this it forces languages to implement certain set of features, and that the libraries to be shareable to be written using a subset of the CLI or CLR. Are there any Parrot plans for something similar, the idea of a single Libarary archive for all the free languages out there sounds amazing. Groovy is doing something exactly this with Java.
Anyway, I read the faq and this seems unlikely to be planned for, but maybe someone else knows better!
Why I was still in university, I used to read stuff like from this article and be impressed!
Now that I've worked for a while, I am thinking... well, it just something that sound nice
probably help few ppl feel better about themselves but... it just soooo misleading!
Of course it better to hire few experienced (probably senior) workers, that few inexperienced ones!
why should it be otherwise, its not like its a job of waiting tables... its a job like many
that required education and experience, how odd? and all this time I thought that any one
who read "thinking in java" can truely think in java, just like that, no work experience required!
now I am enlightened!
and why is it hard to hire programmers! i mean is it to assume that someone like Linus Torvald or
Larry Wall or Audrey Tang... or anyone who got a real work experience working for any of the many real companies that
created real software that you could try urself would be at least good enough!
can't u formulate a decent C# or Java exam to filter your candidate, would 3 or 4 interviews expose the wannabes, I mean comme on! Just ask him to explain the code of a real application he wrote, how hard is that!!!
Novell doesn't own the open source work/code, Microsoft doesn't own the open source work/code.
What is sooo wrong in the open source license/structure/community whatever, that a deal betweem these two entities or any entities whatsover, can be a threat to open source?
It doesn't make sense
Amongst other fundamental values, I consider justice the most important.
I also believe that you can not hope to have justice for yourself without asking for justice for everyone else (I believe there is a famous quote that say exactly that).
If you dont want justice for everyone, you are a tyrant!
I read the product description, and, for one I dont see how can a company need to collaborate 250,000+ employee.
I dont think this is humanly doable, in other words, the human manager will break or not even consider coodinating such a huge number of people, even if the software exist.
Break and conquer, I think the 250,000+ and coordinated via a smaller group of managers, a lot smaller, I dont believe a company this size (if such a beat exist) would be so decentralized, plus, in such larger firms the majority is labor, they probably dont need such tools
All the software packages I need, in the versions I need/want. And only that.
A distro in my understanding, is a set of packages that don't conflict, so in a way, by choosing exactly what I want I am creating my own distro.
I may also wish to run two different version of the same package.
I may also want to compile some of them to set the compile options to just what I want.
The problem I see with debian, is that it's too dependent on a process, not on tools and standards, this is why I think it will eventually fail, or at least will have variable quality, i.e. few good years and few bad ones.
I don't want a process distro, I want a tools and standard distro, the process should be managed transparently by applying the standard, debian seem to require too much effort which is hard to sustain, to keep its quality.
From where I stand I dee debian is more focused on offering the output of a process, the distros themselves, woody, sarge, etc... and not as much focused on the tools and standards to create a widely inclusive process
I hate it when people attribute gap in productivity to talent!
I think we use the word talent to refer to our missunderstanding why someone is better than someone else in doing something.
Ohhh, he is more talented!
I am not into poetry or painting, so I can't be judge of why some people paint better than other.
But programming, is something I dig into, and I wouldn't compare it to painting, ever.
To a good programmer, in my opinion, require some skills/discipline, and some education.
I believe it's the skills/discipline part that many people confuse with the so called talent.
To be a good progammer you need to be patient, you don't learn patience, but you are trained to be patient.
We went to school, and by going to school daily, even thought it sucked and we didn't learn much, we were trained the skill or discipline, and being on time, every day.
So after finishing school, going to work, even if it sucks isn't such a big deal, cause you been trained.
This is just my attempt to justify gap in productivity amongst programmer, of course there other factors, like how honest and sincere you are in general, how serious about work are you, how much do you love what you do, etc...
I just don't like the word talent, you can't measure talent, and what you can't, measure you can't improve, if you believe it is so, then, logically you are saying that there is no hope for bad programmer, which is probably true, but for different reasons, for example, its so hard to train people some skills after they reach a certain age, etc...
My advice for the guy asking the question here, is be a good manager, educate and motivate, and educate, and motivate...
Lack of education might push ppl to not try their best, so by educating them, teaching your partner what you know and he don't, you will motivate him to do better, put more effort.
And I think what you want from your partner isn't really output, as much as it is effort, if talent exist, it won't affect how much effort he pus, it will affect the quality of the output.
The way I see it, if it's dull it most probably mean it can be automated, so instead of keep doing the dull work, find a way to use current technology to automate it, if such technology doesn't exist, well, it should be created!
So I guess, what I am trying to say is, that eventually with enough technological advancement, mankind will not be required to do dull work! And our kids will have the freedom to do what they love. It's just a matter of time.
I am not totally, against training our children to do dull work, but I am sort of against, teaching them that is as good as it gets!
I have few counter arguments
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 1
I think Bill Gates had many dreams, and at least one popular and solid vision: "A computer in every house, or Personal Computer". I am not saying that this vision is stricly his, maybe he borrowed it from someone else, or adopted it somehow. But he had one...
As for Linux, well, Linux didn't really succeed alone, it succeeded as being part of the GNU thing, and RMS obvioulsy had a vision, so (even thought it doesn't have to be true) I can argue that if it weren't for RMS's vision, Linux would have stayed a just for fun thingie. RMS gave linux caliber.
As for what someone else said, that this vision->mission->goals, is a strict system, well, there are several arguments against that.
First many people do have visions and missions, but they don't state it, maybe they are shy afraid or don't think its important, but no, communication your ideas and goals are importnat so if you got them, plz, say em.
The hierarchy is exactly how the strictness is removed, a goals is specific and precise, its one clear thing, that you either achieve it or not, a vision is less specific and more liberal, take Bill Gates vision for example, it didn't say, that a proprietary OS had to be the solution, it was just one way to achieve it. Take RMS vision, people still argue about the definition of free software, what's free what isn't, so you see
So you see, the strategic system only help people create direction, and decide whether or not they achieved progress
starting from the bottom
on
What is Perl 6?
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
The problem I see with a language like perl6 and mant others, is that it seems they all started from the bottom.
They add features, which already exists in some other language, only they maybe improve the interface, or add any sort of incremental improvement to it.
My problem I see, they didn't start with a dream, which became a vision, which became a mission, which transalted to goals, and then a solid implementation.
If you are already familiar with strategic management, you will noticed I borrowed some terms, from that field. Strategic management suggest that for an organization to succeed, it must have a clear vision (based on a dream a good cause or whatever), a mission (a more realistic translation of the vision/dream) , and finally goals and objective (implementation detail)
So I ask, what's perl6 vision, I think perl6 started with details, this is why me and many others are not existed about it, sure it will better (maybe), but it won't be new, and probably it won't add much to the technology arena.
Back then I only had a 56 kbps dial-up connection, and downloading linux wasn't really an option. I visited the linux-egypt website to know from where I can buy linux CDs
And sometimes I just need an egyptian to talk to, explain to him my linux problem and get his feedback
Other times I just feel like talking about the presence and the future of free software in egypt
So I think, my conclusion is, as long as distance and culture matters, lug, (local linux help) will continue to matter.
Many people have replied saying that it's okay or normal for a for profit organization to care about money the way Red-Hat is accused to be doing.
I have never dealt with Red-Hat in that way, so I won't judge Red-Hat.
But speaking in general, no it is not okay.
Organizations are members of our society, globla orgnizations are members of the global community.
The same way, its not okay for a person to only care about money, it's not okay for an organization to be all about money.
Being NICE, is a good reputation, treating your smallest client the same as the biggest, is NICE, and we should encourage all organizations to do it, because that way we will be living in a NICE society
I can elaborate on this for ever, but for most people I think the point is clear the worst thing that happens to some organization is when they become bigger than their clients, and start to treat them as inferior entities
well, I said this opinion before, but I see no trouble in repeating it, the answer to your problem isn't using software from big or small companies, open source or closed source. The real answer is to use standards, and mainly standard data format.
Data are the facts that you want to record/save as is and which you can't easily reproduce, like an article you wrote (which you can't remember for ever) or a painting that you drew.
So as I said before, we really need portable data format, than portable processing interfaces (I think ultimately a program without the data, is just a data processing interface).
MS Office or Anonymous-Organization Office, it would not really mater.
From my readings in the relational data model and RDBMS theory, I learned that SQL is supposed to be a declarative lanuguage, which means, you tell the DBMS engine what you want done, and not how?
Then the DBMS will use the path which is most optimized for the request.
Saying that a certain engine is optimized for some types of task, goes against the theory of relational databases, a DBMS can and should be everything for everyone.
So, the fact that MySql is better for some tasks than Oracle, is a flaw in both engines, and supposedly one that both are working to fix.
Just to give an example, since the user, doesn't see where and how his data is stored, Oracle for example, can use MySql's engine internally, when it detect situations for which MySql's engine is optimized, and switch to Oracle's engine, when the situation change, all hidden from the user, of course this is all in theory. It can be factually impossible to implement such a thing.
Dapper Drake is the name of the next ubuntu release.
Each Ubuntu release have two names
I quote from some link on the net "...the goals we have set for Dapper, the roadmap, the process we are following to identify and specify features, and the tools we will be using to coordinate and deliver The Drake."
This gives the impression, that for each release they separated the process from the output of the process and given each a name.
I don't trust that quote much, as I search quickly and didn't find anything else that support this concept.
Anyway, I do think the idea is worthy of investigating, I quote Eisenhower 's "Plans are nothing, planning is everything".
Having a new plan for every release, and recognizing the plan value by giving it a name, a seperate name, seems to satisfy Eisenhower thinking more, it also implies that planning for releases is not dead, which is good, for every release life might have gotten different, and the new for a new plan, way of doing things might arise.
In conclusion, I like the idea, that a release plan, is named and published, and is viable for continues modifications
I think, as time pass by, and more developer and systems makers realize that as long as the data is portable (.pdf,.html,.jpg,.mp3,.ogg) the system used to access the data becomes less and less relevant, I think more ppl may switch to alternative platform as they learn that their data will move with them.
I want to attack this issue from so many different angles I don't know from where to start...
To be snazy I'd say PDA suffer from
So many features
So little screen
Too many (or too few) button
So much to learn
Any one want to use technology like so
I tell you (the machine) what to do
You do as I say
If its so hard to figure how to tell the machine what I want, or if takes too long too learn what the machine can do, less and less people will be interested, most people would want a more straight forward relationship with the machine, not a relation ship that require much learning, investigation, trial and error, etc...
I think mobile phones and IPod succeeded where PDAs have failed because, IPods and Phones too a bottom up approach, that started with few basic functionality and added more little by little, teaching the user the interface and the new feature step by step.
PDAs on the other hand started with vague (or non basic, non interesting) functionality added even more
So finally I think its a matter of balance, adding as many feature as possible within a simple interface as possible, I think even IPods and phone will reach a point where its no longer appealing to add feature and en-reciproque complexity to the interface. PDAs started at the top that have to remove features to reach the correct balance which is not commercially feasible, mobile phones started with one basic functionality and added more along the way, they will reach the balance or the break even point in a more commercially sensible way. By adding features not removing them
Okay, I admit the analogy is a bit extreme but it makes the points obvious.
The thing is I think people don't think deep enough anymore.
What is a framework?
I not sure we can all agree on the answer, I am sure that there is a formal answer.
I would say a framework, is a factory.
Someone else can say, a framework is a meta-tool, a tool that makes tools.
Another can say, a framework is a domain-specific language.
And another (the one I like the best) would ask, what is the difference between all those answers.
Does C++ or Haskell, qualify as frameworks, why and why not?
Does PostgreSql qualify as a framework? why not, couldn't we say that pgsql is a framework to create databases, it just happens to implement that standard language called Sql.
The point I want to make is, a framework is software that helps you tell the computer what you want to do, in that I don't see how can a framework be any differant than any software you've used (thinking about it I can say MS Word is a framework to create documents). So disregarding frameworks altogether is just wrong.
A framework will include the know-how of some developers, you should not start from scratch, you should not start from the beginning, you should always start from where others have ended, to learn from their work and experience, else have other have said it before me, you are deemed to reinvent the wheel, and you will be pushing your self back to the stone age (or whenever they actually reinvented the wheel)
Nowadays, there are plenty of frameworks to create webapps, choose the one you think have all you need,
Most frameworks have one primary language used to extend the framework
That what makes the language relevant in your choice, if you will be working on the site yourself, choose the framework with the language you know best, else choose a framework that is exensible using the so called commercial languages, Java or C#; to make it easy to find programmers.
I can't count the time where I've on programming forums, think like... "for work I use Java". And the forum would be pro OSS or pro Perl etc....
Slashdot Mirror
Does Parrot work like the .Net framework in the sense that libraries say writen in Perl can be used in Python or Tcl!
(note that Tcl is a completly different paradigm than Perl or Python)
.Net to achieve this it forces languages to implement certain set of features, and that the libraries to be shareable to be written using a subset of the CLI or CLR. Are there any Parrot plans for something similar, the idea of a single Libarary archive for all the free languages out there sounds amazing. Groovy is doing something exactly this with Java.
I do know that for
Anyway, I read the faq and this seems unlikely to be planned for, but maybe someone else knows better!
why should MS care who is the bigger threat! Both are ..
Why I was still in university, I used to read stuff like from this article and be impressed! ... well, it just something that sound nice ... it just soooo misleading!
... its a job like many
that required education and experience, how odd? and all this time I thought that any one
who read "thinking in java" can truely think in java, just like that, no work experience required!
Now that I've worked for a while, I am thinking
probably help few ppl feel better about themselves but
Of course it better to hire few experienced (probably senior) workers, that few inexperienced ones! why should it be otherwise, its not like its a job of waiting tables
now I am enlightened!
and why is it hard to hire programmers! i mean is it to assume that someone like Linus Torvald or Larry Wall or Audrey Tang... or anyone who got a real work experience working for any of the many real companies that created real software that you could try urself would be at least good enough!
can't u formulate a decent C# or Java exam to filter your candidate, would 3 or 4 interviews expose the wannabes, I mean comme on! Just ask him to explain the code of a real application he wrote, how hard is that!!!
Why don't they just quietly stop advertising for the Game Boy product, stop it's production.
But I can't help but to think, life is changing
Distros are not a hot topic anymore
where are all the debate about the best distro
or the best desktop environment
the source based vs binary based
where is gentoo where is mandriva where is slackware
The distro arena kinda became dry, or it matured I dunno
Is it time to really standardize linux?
this is what I think when I remember Paul Graham
People should read more specialized economic, financial and management review
to learn more about the Business situation of MS
Reading Paul to learn about the business situation of something
is like reading slashdot to become a linux sys/admin
Novell doesn't own the open source work/code, Microsoft doesn't own the open source work/code.
What is sooo wrong in the open source license/structure/community whatever, that a deal betweem these two entities or any entities whatsover, can be a threat to open source?
It doesn't make sense
like those who can't do ... teach
Amongst other fundamental values, I consider justice the most important.
I also believe that you can not hope to have justice for yourself without asking for justice for everyone else (I believe there is a famous quote that say exactly that).
If you dont want justice for everyone, you are a tyrant!
I read the product description, and, for one I dont see how can a company need to collaborate 250,000+ employee.
I dont think this is humanly doable, in other words, the human manager will break or not even consider coodinating such a huge number of people, even if the software exist.
Break and conquer, I think the 250,000+ and coordinated via a smaller group of managers, a lot smaller, I dont believe a company this size (if such a beat exist) would be so decentralized, plus, in such larger firms the majority is labor, they probably dont need such tools
What I want is simple.
All the software packages I need, in the versions I need/want. And only that.
A distro in my understanding, is a set of packages that don't conflict, so in a way, by choosing exactly what I want I am creating my own distro.
I may also wish to run two different version of the same package.
I may also want to compile some of them to set the compile options to just what I want.
The problem I see with debian, is that it's too dependent on a process, not on tools and standards, this is why I think it will eventually fail, or at least will have variable quality, i.e. few good years and few bad ones.
I don't want a process distro, I want a tools and standard distro, the process should be managed transparently by applying the standard, debian seem to require too much effort which is hard to sustain, to keep its quality.
From where I stand I dee debian is more focused on offering the output of a process, the distros themselves, woody, sarge, etc... and not as much focused on the tools and standards to create a widely inclusive process
I hate it when people attribute gap in productivity to talent!
...
...
...
I think we use the word talent to refer to our missunderstanding why someone is better than someone else in doing something.
Ohhh, he is more talented!
I am not into poetry or painting, so I can't be judge of why some people paint better than other.
But programming, is something I dig into, and I wouldn't compare it to painting, ever.
To a good programmer, in my opinion, require some skills/discipline, and some education.
I believe it's the skills/discipline part that many people confuse with the so called talent.
To be a good progammer you need to be patient, you don't learn patience, but you are trained to be patient.
We went to school, and by going to school daily, even thought it sucked and we didn't learn much, we were trained the skill or discipline, and being on time, every day.
So after finishing school, going to work, even if it sucks isn't such a big deal, cause you been trained.
This is just my attempt to justify gap in productivity amongst programmer, of course there other factors, like how honest and sincere you are in general, how serious about work are you, how much do you love what you do, etc
I just don't like the word talent, you can't measure talent, and what you can't, measure you can't improve, if you believe it is so, then, logically you are saying that there is no hope for bad programmer, which is probably true, but for different reasons, for example, its so hard to train people some skills after they reach a certain age, etc
My advice for the guy asking the question here, is be a good manager, educate and motivate, and educate, and motivate
Lack of education might push ppl to not try their best, so by educating them, teaching your partner what you know and he don't, you will motivate him to do better, put more effort.
And I think what you want from your partner isn't really output, as much as it is effort, if talent exist, it won't affect how much effort he pus, it will affect the quality of the output.
So that's it this is what I thnk!
The way I see it, if it's dull it most probably mean it can be automated, so instead of keep doing the dull work, find a way to use current technology to automate it, if such technology doesn't exist, well, it should be created!
So I guess, what I am trying to say is, that eventually with enough technological advancement, mankind will not be required to do dull work! And our kids will have the freedom to do what they love. It's just a matter of time.
I am not totally, against training our children to do dull work, but I am sort of against, teaching them that is as good as it gets!
As for Linux, well, Linux didn't really succeed alone, it succeeded as being part of the GNU thing, and RMS obvioulsy had a vision, so (even thought it doesn't have to be true) I can argue that if it weren't for RMS's vision, Linux would have stayed a just for fun thingie. RMS gave linux caliber.
As for what someone else said, that this vision->mission->goals, is a strict system, well, there are several arguments against that.
- First many people do have visions and missions, but they don't state it, maybe they are shy afraid or don't think its important, but no, communication your ideas and goals are importnat so if you got them, plz, say em.
- The hierarchy is exactly how the strictness is removed, a goals is specific and precise, its one clear thing, that you either achieve it or not, a vision is less specific and more liberal, take Bill Gates vision for example, it didn't say, that a proprietary OS had to be the solution, it was just one way to achieve it. Take RMS vision, people still argue about the definition of free software, what's free what isn't, so you see
So you see, the strategic system only help people create direction, and decide whether or not they achieved progressThe problem I see with a language like perl6 and mant others, is that it seems they all started from the bottom.
They add features, which already exists in some other language, only they maybe improve the interface, or add any sort of incremental improvement to it.
My problem I see, they didn't start with a dream, which became a vision, which became a mission, which transalted to goals, and then a solid implementation.
If you are already familiar with strategic management, you will noticed I borrowed some terms, from that field. Strategic management suggest that for an organization to succeed, it must have a clear vision (based on a dream a good cause or whatever), a mission (a more realistic translation of the vision/dream) , and finally goals and objective (implementation detail)
So I ask, what's perl6 vision, I think perl6 started with details, this is why me and many others are not existed about it, sure it will better (maybe), but it won't be new, and probably it won't add much to the technology arena.
Back then I only had a 56 kbps dial-up connection, and downloading linux wasn't really an option. I visited the linux-egypt website to know from where I can buy linux CDs
And sometimes I just need an egyptian to talk to, explain to him my linux problem and get his feedback
Other times I just feel like talking about the presence and the future of free software in egypt
So I think, my conclusion is, as long as distance and culture matters, lug, (local linux help) will continue to matter.
Many people have replied saying that it's okay or normal for a for profit organization to care about money the way Red-Hat is accused to be doing.
I have never dealt with Red-Hat in that way, so I won't judge Red-Hat.
But speaking in general, no it is not okay.
Organizations are members of our society, globla orgnizations are members of the global community.
The same way, its not okay for a person to only care about money, it's not okay for an organization to be all about money.
Being NICE, is a good reputation, treating your smallest client the same as the biggest, is NICE, and we should encourage all organizations to do it, because that way we will be living in a NICE society
I can elaborate on this for ever, but for most people I think the point is clear the worst thing that happens to some organization is when they become bigger than their clients, and start to treat them as inferior entities
well, I said this opinion before, but I see no trouble in repeating it, the answer to your problem isn't using software from big or small companies, open source or closed source. The real answer is to use standards, and mainly standard data format.
Data are the facts that you want to record/save as is and which you can't easily reproduce, like an article you wrote (which you can't remember for ever) or a painting that you drew.
So as I said before, we really need portable data format, than portable processing interfaces (I think ultimately a program without the data, is just a data processing interface).
MS Office or Anonymous-Organization Office, it would not really mater.
From my readings in the relational data model and RDBMS theory, I learned that SQL is supposed to be a declarative lanuguage, which means, you tell the DBMS engine what you want done, and not how?
Then the DBMS will use the path which is most optimized for the request.
Saying that a certain engine is optimized for some types of task, goes against the theory of relational databases, a DBMS can and should be everything for everyone.
So, the fact that MySql is better for some tasks than Oracle, is a flaw in both engines, and supposedly one that both are working to fix.
Just to give an example, since the user, doesn't see where and how his data is stored, Oracle for example, can use MySql's engine internally, when it detect situations for which MySql's engine is optimized, and switch to Oracle's engine, when the situation change, all hidden from the user, of course this is all in theory. It can be factually impossible to implement such a thing.
this seems like the first obvious or direct benefit for us Arabs, a new technology that serves us, goood work, give somemore, arabize emacs.
Anyone feeling jealous!
Okay, that last bit was a funny. No offense anyone.
Dapper Drake is the name of the next ubuntu release.
Each Ubuntu release have two names
I quote from some link on the net "...the goals we have set for Dapper, the roadmap, the process we are following to identify and specify features, and the tools we will be using to coordinate and deliver The Drake."
This gives the impression, that for each release they separated the process from the output of the process and given each a name.
I don't trust that quote much, as I search quickly and didn't find anything else that support this concept.
Anyway, I do think the idea is worthy of investigating, I quote Eisenhower 's "Plans are nothing, planning is everything".
Having a new plan for every release, and recognizing the plan value by giving it a name, a seperate name, seems to satisfy Eisenhower thinking more, it also implies that planning for releases is not dead, which is good, for every release life might have gotten different, and the new for a new plan, way of doing things might arise.
In conclusion, I like the idea, that a release plan, is named and published, and is viable for continues modifications
I think, as time pass by, and more developer and systems makers realize that as long as the data is portable (.pdf, .html, .jpg, .mp3, .ogg) the system used to access the data becomes less and less relevant, I think more ppl may switch to alternative platform as they learn that their data will move with them.
To be snazy I'd say PDA suffer from
- So many features
- So little screen
- Too many (or too few) button
- So much to learn
Any one want to use technology like soIf its so hard to figure how to tell the machine what I want, or if takes too long too learn what the machine can do, less and less people will be interested, most people would want a more straight forward relationship with the machine, not a relation ship that require much learning, investigation, trial and error, etc...
I think mobile phones and IPod succeeded where PDAs have failed because, IPods and Phones too a bottom up approach, that started with few basic functionality and added more little by little, teaching the user the interface and the new feature step by step.
PDAs on the other hand started with vague (or non basic, non interesting) functionality added even more
So finally I think its a matter of balance, adding as many feature as possible within a simple interface as possible, I think even IPods and phone will reach a point where its no longer appealing to add feature and en-reciproque complexity to the interface. PDAs started at the top that have to remove features to reach the correct balance which is not commercially feasible, mobile phones started with one basic functionality and added more along the way, they will reach the balance or the break even point in a more commercially sensible way. By adding features not removing them
Okay, I admit the analogy is a bit extreme but it makes the points obvious.
The thing is I think people don't think deep enough anymore.
What is a framework?
I not sure we can all agree on the answer, I am sure that there is a formal answer.
I would say a framework, is a factory.
Someone else can say, a framework is a meta-tool, a tool that makes tools.
Another can say, a framework is a domain-specific language.
And another (the one I like the best) would ask, what is the difference between all those answers.
Does C++ or Haskell, qualify as frameworks, why and why not?
Does PostgreSql qualify as a framework? why not, couldn't we say that pgsql is a framework to create databases, it just happens to implement that standard language called Sql.
The point I want to make is, a framework is software that helps you tell the computer what you want to do, in that I don't see how can a framework be any differant than any software you've used (thinking about it I can say MS Word is a framework to create documents). So disregarding frameworks altogether is just wrong.
A framework will include the know-how of some developers, you should not start from scratch, you should not start from the beginning, you should always start from where others have ended, to learn from their work and experience, else have other have said it before me, you are deemed to reinvent the wheel, and you will be pushing your self back to the stone age (or whenever they actually reinvented the wheel)
Nowadays, there are plenty of frameworks to create webapps, choose the one you think have all you need,
... "for work I use Java". And the forum would be pro OSS or pro Perl etc....
Most frameworks have one primary language used to extend the framework
That what makes the language relevant in your choice, if you will be working on the site yourself, choose the framework with the language you know best, else choose a framework that is exensible using the so called commercial languages, Java or C#; to make it easy to find programmers.
I can't count the time where I've on programming forums, think like